The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Sensitivity of predictive species distribution models to change in grain size
Open accessAbstract
Predictive species distribution modelling (SDM) has become an essential tool in biodiversity conservation and management. The choice of grain size (resolution) of environmental layers used in modelling is one important factor that may affect predictions. We applied 10 distinct modelling techniques to presence‐only data for 50 species in five different regions, to test whether: (1) a 10‐fold coarsening of resolution affects predictive performance of SDMs, and (2) any observed effects are dependent on the type of region, modelling technique, or species considered. Results show that a 10 times change in grain size does not severely affect predictions from species distribution models. The overall trend is towards degradation of model performance, but improvement can also be observed. Changing grain size does not equally affect models across regions, techniques, and species types. The strongest effect is on regions and species types, with tree species in the data sets (regions) with highest locational accuracy being most affected. Changing grain size had little influence on the ranking of techniques: boosted regression trees remain best at both resolutions. The number of occurrences used for model training had an important effect, with larger sample sizes resulting in better models, which tended to be more sensitive to grain. Effect of grain change was only noticeable for models reaching sufficient performance and/or with initial data that have an intrinsic error smaller than the coarser grain size.
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
Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine
Friedman, J. H. (2001) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1013203451 · Cited by 30,731
McCullagh, P., & Nelder, J. A. (1989) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-3242-6 · Cited by 16,836
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
Effects 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-citationQiao, H., Soberón, J., & Peterson, A. T. (2015) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.12397 · Cited by 448
Kumar, S., & Stohlgren, T. J. (2009) · Journal of Ecology and the Natural Environment · doi:10.5897/jene.9000071 · Cited by 445
A checklist for maximizing reproducibility of ecological niche models
Feng, X., Park, D. S., Walker, C., Peterson, A. T., Merow, C., & Papeş, M. (2019) · Nature Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1038/s41559-019-0972-5 · Cited by 323
Liu, C., Newell, G., & White, M. (2019) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.03188 · Cited by 179
Metadata
- Authors
- Guisan, A., Graham, C. H., Elith, J., Huettmann, F., & the NCEAS Species Distribution Modelling Group
- Venue
- Diversity and Distributions
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-04-17
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 332-340
- ISSN
- 0967-9952 (ISSN-L)
- 1366-9516
- 1472-4642
- OpenAlex
- W2040926197
- Cited by
- 543
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 14.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Sensitivity of predictive species distribution models to change in grain size. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2007.00342.x
- The paper
- Guisan, A., Graham, C. H., Elith, J., Huettmann, F., & the NCEAS Species Distribution Modelling Group. (2007). Sensitivity of predictive species distribution models to change in grain size. Diversity and Distributions. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2007.00342.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.