The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluation of consensus methods in predictive species distribution modelling
Open accessAbstract
Aim Spatial modelling techniques are increasingly used in species distribution modelling. However, the implemented techniques differ in their modelling performance, and some consensus methods are needed to reduce the uncertainty of predictions. In this study, we tested the predictive accuracies of five consensus methods, namely Weighted Average (WA), Mean(All), Median(All), Median(PCA), and Best, for 28 threatened plant species. Location North‐eastern Finland, Europe. Methods The spatial distributions of the plant species were forecasted using eight state‐of‐the‐art single‐modelling techniques providing an ensemble of predictions. The probability values of occurrence were then combined using five consensus algorithms. The predictive accuracies of the single‐model and consensus methods were assessed by computing the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver‐operating characteristic plot. Results The mean AUC values varied between 0.697 (classification tree analysis) and 0.813 (random forest) for the single‐models, and from 0.757 to 0.850 for the consensus methods. WA and Mean(All) consensus methods provided significantly more robust predictions than all the single‐models and the other consensus methods. Main conclusions Consensus methods based on average function algorithms may increase significantly the accuracy of species distribution forecasts, and thus they show considerable promise for different conservation biological and biogeographical applications.
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
Breiman, L. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 · Cited by 133,538
Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach.
Guthery, F. S., Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2003) · The Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2307/3802723 · Cited by 41,495
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
Random forests for classification in ecology
Cutler, D. R., Edwards, T. C., Beard, K. H., Cutler, A., Hess, K. T., Gibson, J., & Lawler, J. J. (2007) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/07-0539.1 · Cited by 4,950
Cited by
The art of modelling range-shifting species: The art of modelling range-shifting species
Elith, J., Kearney, M., & Phillips, S. (2010) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.2041-210x.2010.00036.x · Cited by 2,813
BIOMOD – a platform for ensemble forecasting of species distributions
Thuiller, W., Lafourcade, B., Engler, R., & Araújo, M. B. (2009) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2008.05742.x · Cited by 2,749
Self-citationSelecting pseudo‐absences for species distribution models: how, where and how many?
Barbet‐Massin, M., Jiguet, F., Albert, C. H., & Thuiller, W. (2012) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.2041-210x.2011.00172.x · Cited by 2,716
Self-citationValavi, R., Guillera‐Arroita, G., Lahoz‐Monfort, J. J., & Elith, J. (2022) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.1002/ecm.1486 · Cited by 830
Want to model a species niche? A step-by-step guideline on correlative ecological niche modelling
Sillero, N., Arenas-Castro, S., Enriquez‐Urzelai, U., Vale, C. G., Sousa-Guedes, D., Martínez-Freiría, F., Real, R., & Barbosa, A. M. (2021) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2021.109671 · Cited by 456
Metadata
- Authors
- Marmion, M., Parviainen, M., Luoto, M., Heikkinen, R. K., & Thuiller, W.
- Venue
- Diversity and Distributions
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-12-08
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 59-69
- ISSN
- 0967-9952 (ISSN-L)
- 1366-9516
- 1472-4642
- OpenAlex
- W2092141482
- Cited by
- 1,435
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 19.25
- 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: Evaluation of consensus methods in predictive species distribution modelling. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2008.00491.x
- The paper
- Marmion, M., Parviainen, M., Luoto, M., Heikkinen, R. K., & Thuiller, W. (2009). Evaluation of consensus methods in predictive species distribution modelling. Diversity and Distributions. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2008.00491.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.