Cited by 875Species Distribution and Climate ChangeEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesAmphibian and Reptile Biology

An evaluation of methods for modelling species distributions

Segurado, Pedro, Araújo, Miguel B.·2004·Journal of Biogeography

Abstract

Aim Various statistical techniques have been used to model species probabilities of occurrence in response to environmental conditions. This paper provides a comprehensive assessment of methods and investigates whether errors in model predictions are associated to specific kinds of geographical and environmental distributions of species. Location Portugal, Western Europe. Methods Probabilities of occurrence for 44 species of amphibians and reptiles in Portugal were modelled using seven modelling techniques: Gower metric, Ecological Niche Factor Analysis, classification trees, neural networks, generalized linear models, generalized additive models and spatial interpolators. Generalized linear and additive models were constructed with and without a term accounting for spatial autocorrelation. Model performance was measured using two methods: sensitivity and Kappa index. Species were grouped according to their spatial (area of occupancy and extent of occurrence) and environmental (marginality and tolerance) distributions. Two‐way comparison tests were performed to detect significant interactions between models and species groups. Results Interaction between model and species groups was significant for both sensitivity and Kappa index. This indicates that model performance varied for species with different geographical and environmental distributions. Artificial neural networks performed generally better, immediately followed by generalized additive models including a covariate t…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2004.01076.x

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 67 · Cited by 875

Authors
Segurado, P., & Araújo, M. B.
Affiliations
  • University of Évora (PT)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Corresponding author
Araújo, Miguel B.
Venue
Journal of Biogeography
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-09-13
Volume
31
Issue
10
Pages
1555-1568
ISSN
  • 0305-0270 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2699
OpenAlex
W1838542636
Cited by
875
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 43 · 2013: 39 · 2012: 54
FWCI
27.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Biogeography (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecological Modeling › Species Distribution and Climate Change
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Amphibian and Reptile Biology
Keywords
species distribution modeling, amphibians, reptiles, model performance comparison, spatial autocorrelation, generalized additive models, artificial neural networks, classification trees, generalized linear models, ecological niche factor analysis, area of occupancy, extent of occurrence, species tolerance, model sensitivity, kappa index, Portugal

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