The DOI matches its Crossref record; 77 of the 77 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Paintings predict the distribution of species, or the challenge of selecting environmental predictors and evaluation statistics
Abstract
Aim: Species distribution modelling, a family of statistical methods that predicts species distributions from a set of occurrences and environmental predictors, is now routinely applied in many macroecological studies. However, the reliability of evaluation metrics usually employed to validate these models remains questioned. Moreover, the emergence of online databases of environmental variables with global coverage, especially climatic, has favoured the use of the same set of standard predictors. Unfortunately, the selection of variables is too rarely based on a careful examination of the species' ecology. In this context, our aim was to highlight the importance of selecting ad hoc variables in species distribution models, and to assess the ability of classical evaluation statistics to identify models with no biological realism. Innovation: First, we reviewed the current practices in the field of species distribution modelling in terms of variable selection and model evaluation. Then, we computed distribution models of 509 European species using pseudo‐predictors derived from paintings or using a real set of climatic and topographic predictors. We calculated model performance based on the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) and true skill statistics (TSS), partitioning occurrences into training and test data with different levels of spatial independence. Most models computed from pseudo‐predictors were classified as good and sometimes were even better evaluated than models computed using real environmental variables. However, on average they were better discriminated when the partitioning of occurrences allowed testing for model transferability. Main conclusions: These findings confirm the crucial importance of variable selection and the inability of current evaluation metrics to assess the biological significance of distribution models. We recommend that researchers carefully select variables according to the species' ecology and evaluate models only according to their capacity to be transfered in distant areas. Nevertheless, statistics of model evaluations must still be interpreted with great caution.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The AUC score is the most widely used metric to assess and compare models of binary or categorical outcomes but has some issues in its use with models that use pseudo-absence points [93].”
From Advancing predictive modeling in archaeology: an evaluation of regression and machine learning methods on the grand staircase-escalante national monument (2020) · cites this paper as [93]
Citations
Cites
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2025) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 352,181
Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach.
Guthery, F. S., Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2003) · The Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2307/3802723 · Cited by 41,495
The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.
Hanley, J. A., & McNeil, B. J. (1982) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiology.143.1.7063747 · Cited by 21,856
Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas
Hijmans, R. J., Cameron, S. E., Parra, J. L., Jones, P. G., & Jarvis, A. (2005) · International Journal of Climatology · doi:10.1002/joc.1276 · Cited by 19,825
Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions
Phillips, S. J., Anderson, R. P., & Schapire, R. E. (2006) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.03.026 · Cited by 15,396
Measuring the Accuracy of Diagnostic Systems
Swets, J. A. (1988) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.3287615 · Cited by 10,058
Dormann, C. F., Elith, J., Bacher, S., Buchmann, C., Carl, G., Carré, G., Marquéz, J. R. G., Gruber, B., Lafourcade, B., Leitão, P. J., et al. (2013) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2012.07348.x · Cited by 9,998
A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models
FIELDING, A. H., & BELL, J. F. (1997) · Environmental Conservation · doi:10.1017/s0376892997000088 · Cited by 6,956
Species Distribution Models: Ecological Explanation and Prediction Across Space and Time
Elith, J., & Leathwick, J. R. (2009) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.110308.120159 · Cited by 6,707
A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists
Elith, J., Phillips, S. J., Hastie, T., Dudík, M., Chee, Y. E., & Yates, C. J. (2011) · Diversity and Distributions · doi:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00725.x · Cited by 6,699
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- von Humboldt A., 1805, Essai sur la géographie des plantes; accompagné d'un tableau physique des régions équinoxiales
Cited by
Northrup, J. M., Vander Wal, E., Bonar, M., Fieberg, J., Laforge, M. P., Leclerc, M., Prokopenko, C. M., & Gerber, B. D. (2022) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1002/eap.2470 · Cited by 227
“…to differences in the relative abundance of habitat in other areas, missing predictors or model misspecification that will result in coefficients that poorly reflect causal effects (Matthiopoulos et al. 2011, Fourcade et al. 2018; see Functional responses for a discussion of functional responses).”
BackgroundNearest neighbour distance matching Leave‐One‐Out Cross‐Validation for map validation
Milà, C., Mateu, J., Pebesma, E., & Meyer, H. (2022) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.13851 · Cited by 119
Environmental filtering improves ecological niche models across multiple scales
Castellanos, A. A., Huntley, J. W., Voelker, G., & Lawing, A. M. (2019) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.13142 · Cited by 118
Yaworsky, P. M., Vernon, K. B., Spangler, J. D., Brewer, S. C., & Codding, B. F. (2020) · PLOS One · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0239424 · Cited by 104
Moudrý, V., Gábor, L., Marselis, S., Pracná, P., Barták, V., Prošek, J., Navrátilová, B., Novotný, J., Potůčková, M., Gdulová, K., et al. (2024) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1002/ecs2.70026 · Cited by 43
Metadata
- Authors
- Fourcade, Y., Besnard, A. G., & Secondi, J.
- Affiliations
- GECCO (Group of ecology and conservation of vertebrates) Université d'Angers Angers France
- Venue
- Global Ecology and Biogeography
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-11-22
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 245-256
- ISSN
- 1466-822X
- 1466-8238
- Cited by
- 500
- References
- 77
- Language
- en
- Funders
- European Regional Development Fund
- Angers Loire Métropole
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.