Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 500

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

Fourcade, Yoan, Besnard, Aurélien G., Secondi, Jean·2018·Global Ecology and Biogeography
DOI 10.1111/geb.12684
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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

Crossref · 10.1111/geb.12684

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. von Humboldt A., 1805, Essai sur la géographie des plantes; accompagné d'un tableau physique des régions équinoxiales

Cited by

See all 500

Metadata

Authors
Fourcade, Y., Besnard, A. G., & Secondi, J.
Affiliations
GECCO (Group of ecology and conservation of vertebrates) Université d'Angers Angers France
ORCID
Venue
Global Ecology and Biogeography
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-11-22
Volume
27
Issue
2
Pages
245-256
ISSN
  • 1466-822X
  • 1466-8238
DOI
10.1111/geb.12684
Cited by
500
References
77
Language
en
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
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.