The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Transferability and model evaluation in ecological niche modeling: a comparison of GARP and Maxent
Abstract
We compared predictive success in two common algorithms for modeling species’ ecological niches, GARP and Maxent, in a situation that challenged the algorithms to be general – that is, to be able to predict the species’ distributions in broad unsampled regions, here termed transferability. The results were strikingly different between the two algorithms – Maxent models reconstructed the overall distributions of the species at low thresholds, but higher predictive levels of Maxent predictions reflected overfitting to the input data; GARP models, on the other hand, succeeded in anticipating most of the species’ distributional potential, at the cost of increased (apparent, at least) commission error. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) tests were weak in discerning models able to predict into broad unsampled areas from those that were not. Such transferability is clearly a novel challenge for modeling algorithms, and requires different qualities than does predicting within densely sampled landscapes – in this case, Maxent was transferable only at very low thresholds, and biases and gaps in input data may frequently affect results based on higher Maxent thresholds, requiring careful interpretation of model results.
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
DeLong, E. R., DeLong, D. M., & Clarke-Pearson, D. L. (1988) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531595 · Cited by 22,649
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
Selecting thresholds of occurrence in the prediction of species distributions
Liu, C., Berry, P. M., Dawson, T. P., & Pearson, R. G. (2005) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.0906-7590.2005.03957.x · Cited by 2,701
Cited by
ENVIRONMENTAL NICHE EQUIVALENCY VERSUS CONSERVATISM: QUANTITATIVE APPROACHES TO NICHE EVOLUTION
Warren, D. L., Glor, R. E., & Turelli, M. (2008) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00482.x · Cited by 2,663
Barve, N., Barve, V., Jiménez-Valverde, A., Lira-Noriega, A., Maher, S. P., Peterson, A. T., Soberón, J., & Villalobos, F. (2011) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.02.011 · Cited by 1,881
Making 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
Rethinking receiver operating characteristic analysis applications in ecological niche modeling
Peterson, A. T., Papeş, M., & Soberón, J. (2008) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2007.11.008 · Cited by 1,526
Self-citationHabitat suitability modelling and niche theory
Hirzel, A. H., & Le Lay, G. (2008) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01524.x · Cited by 873
Metadata
- Authors
- Townsend Peterson, A., Papeş, M., & Eaton, M.
- Venue
- Ecography
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-08
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 550-560
- ISSN
- 0906-7590 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0587
- OpenAlex
- W2046669039
- Cited by
- 971
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 26.51
- 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: Transferability and model evaluation in ecological niche modeling: a comparison of GARP and Maxent. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.0906-7590.2007.05102.x
- The paper
- Townsend Peterson, A., Papeş, M., & Eaton, M. (2007). Transferability and model evaluation in ecological niche modeling: a comparison of GARP and Maxent. Ecography. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0906-7590.2007.05102.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.