Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,435

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 access
Marmion, Mathieu, Parviainen, Miia, Luoto, Miska, Heikkinen, Risto K., Thuiller, Wilfried·2009·Diversity and Distributions

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2008.00491.x

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 1,435

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.