The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Not as good as they seem: the importance of concepts in species distribution modelling
Open accessAbstract
Aim Nowadays, large amounts of species distribution data and software for implementing different species distribution modelling methods are freely available through the internet. As a result, methodological works that analyse the relative performance of modelling techniques, as well as those that study which species characteristics affect their performance, are necessary. We discuss three important topics that must be kept in mind when modelling species distributions, namely (i) the distinction between potential and realized distribution, (ii) the effect of the relative occurrence area of the species on the results of the evaluation of model performance, and (iii) the general inaccuracy of the predictions of the realized distribution provided by species distribution modelling methods. Location Unspecific. Methods Using some recent papers as a basis, we illustrate the three issues mentioned above and discuss the negative implications of neglecting them. Results Considering a potential‐realized distribution gradient, different modelling methods may be arranged along this gradient according to their ability to model any concept. Complex techniques may be more suitable to model the realized distribution than simple ones, which may be more appropriate to estimate the potential distribution. Comparisons among techniques must consider this scenario. The relative occurrence area of the species conditions the results of the evaluation scores, implying that models of rare species will unavoidably yield higher discrimination values. Moreover, discrimination values that are usually reported in the literature may imply considerable over or underestimations of the distribution of the species. Main conclusions It is extremely important to establish a solid conceptual and methodological framework on which the emergent field of species distribution modelling can stand and develop.
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
Cited by
Species Distribution Models: Ecological Explanation and Prediction Across Space and Time
Elith, J., & Leathwick, J. R. (2009) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.110308.120159 · Cited by 6,707
A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists
Elith, J., Phillips, S. J., Hastie, T., Dudík, M., Chee, Y. E., & Yates, C. J. (2011) · Diversity and Distributions · doi:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00725.x · Cited by 6,699
Jiménez‐Valverde, A. (2012) · Global Ecology and Biogeography · doi:10.1111/j.1466-8238.2011.00683.x · Cited by 803
Self-citationHutchinson's duality: The once and future niche
Colwell, R. K., & Rangel, T. F. (2009) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0901650106 · Cited by 769
Species Distribution Modeling and Ecological Niche Modeling: Getting the Concepts Right
Peterson, A. T., & Soberón, J. (2012) · Natureza & Conservação · doi:10.4322/natcon.2012.019 · Cited by 702
Metadata
- Authors
- Jiménez‐Valverde, A., Lobo, J. M., & Hortal, J.
- Venue
- Diversity and Distributions
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-10-15
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 885-890
- ISSN
- 0967-9952 (ISSN-L)
- 1366-9516
- 1472-4642
- OpenAlex
- W2139853639
- Cited by
- 648
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 21.00
- 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: Not as good as they seem: the importance of concepts in species distribution modelling. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2008.00496.x
- The paper
- Jiménez‐Valverde, A., Lobo, J. M., & Hortal, J. (2008). Not as good as they seem: the importance of concepts in species distribution modelling. Diversity and Distributions. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2008.00496.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.