Cited by 6,484Species Distribution and Climate ChangeStatistical Methods and ApplicationsStatistical Methods and Inference

A working guide to boosted regression trees

Open access
Elith, J., Leathwick, J. R., Hastie, T.·2008·Journal of Animal Ecology

Abstract

1. Ecologists use statistical models for both explanation and prediction, and need techniques that are flexible enough to express typical features of their data, such as nonlinearities and interactions. 2. This study provides a working guide to boosted regression trees (BRT), an ensemble method for fitting statistical models that differs fundamentally from conventional techniques that aim to fit a single parsimonious model. Boosted regression trees combine the strengths of two algorithms: regression trees (models that relate a response to their predictors by recursive binary splits) and boosting (an adaptive method for combining many simple models to give improved predictive performance). The final BRT model can be understood as an additive regression model in which individual terms are simple trees, fitted in a forward, stagewise fashion. 3. Boosted regression trees incorporate important advantages of tree-based methods, handling different types of predictor variables and accommodating missing data. They have no need for prior data transformation or elimination of outliers, can fit complex nonlinear relationships, and automatically handle interaction effects between predictors. Fitting multiple trees in BRT overcomes the biggest drawback of single tree models: their relatively poor predictive performance. Although BRT models are complex, they can be summarized in ways that give powerful ecological insight, and their predictive performance is superior to most traditional modelling methods. 4. The unique features of BRT raise a number of practical issues in model fitting. We demonstrate the practicalities and advantages of using BRT through a distributional analysis of the short-finned eel (Anguilla australis Richardson), a native freshwater fish of New Zealand. We use a data set of over 13 000 sites to illustrate effects of several settings, and then fit and interpret a model using a subset of the data. We provide code and a tutorial to enable the wider use of BRT by ecologists.

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.1365-2656.2008.01390.x

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Boosted trees and support vector regression have been studied for finding longitudinal predictors of glycaemic health.

    “Also, Boosted trees (Elith et al., 2008) and SVR (support vector regression) (Awad and Khanna, 2015) have been investigated for finding the longitudinal predictors of glycaemic health (L et al., 2018).”

    From Using machine learning approaches for multi-omics data analysis: A review (2021) · cites this paper as Elith et al., 2008

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Friedman, J.H., Hastie, T. & Tibshirani, R. (2000) Additive logistic regression: a statistical view of boosting. Annals of Statistics, 28, 337-407.
  2. C.A. San Mateo), pp. 1137-1143.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Elith, J., Leathwick, J. R., & Hastie, T.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NZ)
  • Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Elith, J.
Venue
Journal of Animal Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-04-08
Volume
77
Issue
4
Pages
802-813
ISSN
  • 0021-8790 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2656
OpenAlex
W2135695572
Cited by
6,484
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 412 · 2025: 569 · 2024: 557 · 2023: 588 · 2022: 623 · 2021: 640 · 2020: 589 · 2019: 497 · 2018: 397 · 2017: 350 · 2016: 295 · 2015: 265 · 2014: 207 · 2013: 162 · 2012: 118
FWCI
37.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Animal Ecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Funders
Australian Research Council (DP0772671, LP0667891)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecological Modeling › Species Distribution and Climate Change
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
Keywords
boosted regression trees, ensemble methods, regression trees, boosting, nonlinear relationship, interaction effects, ecological modeling, Anguilla australis, freshwater fish distribution, model interpretation, missing data
MeSH terms
Anguilla, Animals, Decision Trees, Ecology, Models, Biological, Regression Analysis, Statistics as Topic, Models, Statistical

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