The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Choice of predictor variables as a source of uncertainty in continental-scale species distribution modelling under climate change: Predictor uncertainty in species distribution models
Abstract
Aim Species distribution modelling is commonly used to guide future conservation policies in the light of potential climate change. However, arbitrary decisions during the model-building process can affect predictions and contribute to uncertainty about where suitable climate space will exist. For many species, the key climatic factors limiting distributions are unknown. This paper assesses the uncertainty generated by using different climate predictor variable sets for modelling the impacts of climate change. Location Europe, 10° W to 50° E and 30° N to 60° N. Methods Using 1453 presence pixels at 30 arcsec resolution for the great bustard (Otis tarda), predictions of future distribution were made based on two emissions scenarios, three general climate models and 26 sets of predictor variables. Twenty-six current models were created, and 156 for both 2050 and 2080. Map comparison techniques were used to compare predictions in terms of the quantity and the location of presences (map comparison kappa, MCK) and using a range change index (RCI). Generalized linear models (GLMs) were used to partition explained deviance in MCK and RCI among sources of uncertainty. Results The 26 different variable sets achieved high values of AUC (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) and yet introduced substantial variation into maps of current distribution. Differences between maps were even greater when distributions were projected into the future. Some 64–78% of the variation between future maps was attributable to choice of predictor variable set alone. Choice of general climate model and emissions scenario contributed a maximum of 15% variation and their order of importance differed for MCK and RCI. Main conclusions Generalized variable sets produce an unmanageable level of uncertainty in species distribution models which cannot be ignored. The use of sound ecological theory and statistical methods to check predictor variables can reduce this uncertainty, but our knowledge of species may be too limited to make more than arbitrary choices. When all sources of modelling uncertainty are considered together, it is doubtful whether ensemble methods offer an adequate solution. Future studies should explicitly acknowledge uncertainty due to arbitrary choices in the model-building process and develop ways to convey the results to decision-makers.
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
Beven, K., & Freer, J. (2001) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/s0022-1694(01)00421-8 · Cited by 2,189
Cited by
Dormann, C. F., Elith, J., Bacher, S., Buchmann, C., Carl, G., Carré, G., Marquéz, J. R. G., Gruber, B., Lafourcade, B., Leitão, P. J., et al. (2013) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2012.07348.x · Cited by 9,998
Self-citationGlobal trait–environment relationships of plant communities
Bruelheide, H., Dengler, J., Purschke, O., Lenoir, J., Jiménez-Alfaro, B., Hennekens, S. M., Botta-Dukát, Z., Chytrý, M., Field, R., Jansen, F., et al. (2018) · Nature Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1038/s41559-018-0699-8 · Cited by 614
Fourcade, Y., Besnard, A. G., & Secondi, J. (2018) · Global Ecology and Biogeography · doi:10.1111/geb.12684 · Cited by 500
Species Distribution Modeling for Machine Learning Practitioners: A Review
Beery, S., Cole, E., Parker, J., Perona, P., & Winner, K. (2021) · ACM SIGCAS Conference on Computing and Sustainable Societies · doi:10.1145/3460112.3471966 · Cited by 100
Paleodistribution modeling in archaeology and paleoanthropology
Franklin, J., Potts, A. J., Fisher, E. C., Cowling, R. M., & Marean, C. W. (2015) · Quaternary Science Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2014.12.015 · Cited by 71
Metadata
- Authors
- Synes, N. W., & Osborne, P. E.
- Venue
- Global Ecology and Biogeography
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-02-17
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 904-914
- ISSN
- 1466-822X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1504194060
- Cited by
- 245
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 9.54
- 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
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.