The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The effect of sample size and species characteristics on performance of different species distribution modeling methods
Abstract
Species distribution models should provide conservation practioners with estimates of the spatial distributions of species requiring attention. These species are often rare and have limited known occurrences, posing challenges for creating accurate species distribution models. We tested four modeling methods (Bioclim, Domain, GARP, and Maxent) across 18 species with different levels of ecological specialization using six different sample size treatments and three different evaluation measures. Our assessment revealed that Maxent was the most capable of the four modeling methods in producing useful results with sample sizes as small as 5, 10 and 25 occurrences. The other methods compensated reasonably well (Domain and GARP) to poorly (Bioclim) when presented with datasets of small sample sizes. We show that multiple evaluation measures are necessary to determine accuracy of models produced with presence‐only data. Further, we found that accuracy of models is greater for species with small geographic ranges and limited environmental tolerance, ecological characteristics of many rare species. Our results indicate that reasonable models can be made for some rare species, a result that should encourage conservationists to add distribution modeling to their toolbox.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
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
Cited by
AUC: A misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models
Lobo, J. M., Jiménez‐Valverde, A., & Real, R. (2008) · Global Ecology and Biogeography · doi:10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00358.x · Cited by 3,499
Merow, C., Smith, M. J., & Silander, J. A. (2013) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.07872.x · Cited by 3,392
Phillips, S. J., Dudík, M., Elith, J., Graham, C. H., Lehmann, A., Leathwick, J., & Ferrier, S. (2009) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/07-2153.1 · Cited by 2,996
Self-citationEffects of sample size on the performance of species distribution models
Wisz, M. S., Hijmans, R. J., Li, J., Peterson, A. T., Graham, C. H., Guisan, A., & NCEAS Predicting Species Distributions Working Group (2008) · Diversity and Distributions · doi:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2008.00482.x · Cited by 2,514
Self-citationMaking better M axent models of species distributions: complexity, overfitting and evaluation
Radosavljevic, A., & Anderson, R. P. (2014) · Journal of Biogeography · doi:10.1111/jbi.12227 · Cited by 1,723
Metadata
- Authors
- Hernandez, P. A., Graham, C. H., Master, L. L., & Albert, D. L.
- Venue
- Ecography
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-10
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 773-785
- ISSN
- 0906-7590 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0587
- OpenAlex
- W2098827790
- Cited by
- 2,534
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 25.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: The effect of sample size and species characteristics on performance of different species distribution modeling methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.0906-7590.2006.04700.x
- The paper
- Hernandez, P. A., Graham, C. H., Master, L. L., & Albert, D. L. (2006). The effect of sample size and species characteristics on performance of different species distribution modeling methods. Ecography. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0906-7590.2006.04700.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.