Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 838

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Presence‐absence versus presence‐only modelling methods for predicting bird habitat suitability

Open access
Brotons, Lluís, Thuiller, Wilfried, Araújo, Miguel B., Hirzel, Alexandre H.·2004·Ecography

Abstract

Habitat suitability models can be generated using methods requiring information on species presence or species presence and absence. Knowledge of the predictive performance of such methods becomes a critical issue to establish their optimal scope of application for mapping current species distributions under different constraints. Here, we use breeding bird atlas data in Catalonia as a working example and attempt to analyse the relative performance of two methods: the Ecological Niche factor Analysis (ENFA) using presence data only and Generalised Linear Models (GLM) using presence/absence data. Models were run on a set of forest species with similar habitat requirements, but with varying occurrence rates (prevalence) and niche positions (marginality). Our results support the idea that GLM predictions are more accurate than those obtained with ENFA. This was particularly true when species were using available habitats proportionally to their suitability, making absence data reliable and useful to enhance model calibration. Species marginality in niche space was also correlated to predictive accuracy, i.e. species with less restricted ecological requirements were modelled less accurately than species with more restricted requirements. This pattern was irrespective of the method employed. Models for wide‐ranging and tolerant species were more sensitive to absence data, suggesting that presence/absence methods may be particularly important for predicting distributions of this type of species. We conclude that modellers should consider that species ecological characteristics are critical in determining the accuracy of models and that it is difficult to predict generalist species distributions accurately and this is independent of the method used. Being based on distinct approaches regarding adjustment to data and data quality, habitat distribution modelling methods cover different application areas, making it difficult to identify one that should be universally applicable. Our results suggest however, that if absence data is available, methods using this information should be preferably used in most situations.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.0906-7590.2004.03764.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 838

Metadata

Authors
Brotons, L., Thuiller, W., Araújo, M. B., & Hirzel, A. H.
Venue
Ecography
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-05-19
Volume
27
Issue
4
Pages
437-448
ISSN
  • 0906-7590 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0587
OpenAlex
W2129913788
Cited by
838
References
3
FWCI
19.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Presence‐absence versus presence‐only modelling methods for predicting bird habitat suitability. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.0906-7590.2004.03764.x
The paper
Brotons, L., Thuiller, W., Araújo, M. B., & Hirzel, A. H. (2004). Presence‐absence versus presence‐only modelling methods for predicting bird habitat suitability. Ecography. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0906-7590.2004.03764.x

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.