The uncertain nature of absences and their importance in species distribution modelling
Abstract
Species distribution models (SDM) are commonly used to obtain hypotheses on either the realized or the potential distribution of species. The reliability and meaning of these hypotheses depends on the kind of absences included in the training data, the variables used as predictors and the methods employed to parameterize the models. Information about the absence of species from certain localities is usually lacking, so pseudo‐absences are often incorporated to the training data. We explore the effect of using different kinds of pseudo‐absences on SDM results. To do this, we use presence information on Aphodius bonvouloiri , a dung beetle species of well‐known distribution. We incorporate different types of pseudo‐absences to create different sets of training data that account for absences of methodological (i.e. false absences), contingent and environmental origin. We used these datasets to calibrate SDMs with GAMs as modelling technique and climatic variables as predictors, and compare these results with geographical representations of the potential and realized distribution of the species created independently. Our results confirm the importance of the kind of absences in determining the aspect of species distribution identified through SDM. Estimations of the potential distribution require absences located farther apart in the geographic and/or environmental space than estimations of the realized distribution. Methodological absences produce overall bad models, and absences that are too far from the presence points in either the environmental or the geographic space may not be informative, yielding important overestimations. GLMs and Artificial Neural Networks yielded similar results. Synthetic discrimination measures such as the Area Under the Receiver Characteristic Curve (AUC) must be interpreted with caution, as they can produce misleading comparative results. Instead, the joint examination of ommission and comission errors provides a better understanding of the reliability of SDM results.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Using a combined method to generate background points reduces potential model overestimation of environmental suitability in regions of greater occurrence point densities.
“Using a combined method to generate background points reduces potential model overestimation of environmental suitability that typically arises in regions of greater occurrence point densities, usually in more easily sampled areas ( i.e. , spatial bias), and which random background point generation by itself does not consider (Lobo et al., 2010; Kramer-Schadt et al., 2013).”
From Projecting future climate change impacts on the distribution of the ‘Octopus vulgaris species complex’ (2022) · cites this paper as Lobo et al., 2010
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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 · see citing works
Varela, S., Anderson, R. P., García‐Valdés, R., & Fernández‐González, F. (2014) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.00441.x · Cited by 433 · see citing works
megaSDM: Integrating dispersal and time-step analyses into species distribution models
Shipley, B. R., Bach, R., Do, Y., Strathearn, H., McGuire, J. L., & Dilkina, B. (2022) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.05450 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Borges, F. O., Guerreiro, M., Santos, C. P., Paula, J. R., & Rosa, R. (2022) · Frontiers in Marine Science · doi:10.3389/fmars.2022.1018766 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
“, spatial bias), and which random background point generation by itself does not consider (Lobo et al., 2010; Kramer-Schadt et al., 2013).”
Background
- Authors
- Lobo, J. M., Jiménez‐Valverde, A., & Hortal, J.
- Affiliations
- Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (ES)
- Venue
- Ecography
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-02
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 103-114
- ISSN
- 0906-7590 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0587
- OpenAlex
- W2082076621
- Cited by
- 656
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 26 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 53 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 38 · 2014: 48 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 40
- FWCI
- 24.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Ecography (publishedVersion)
- DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecological Modeling › Species Distribution and Climate Change
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Scarabaeidae Beetle Taxonomy and Biogeography
- Keywords
- species distribution modeling, pseudo-absences, absence data, dung beetles, potential distribution, false absences, generalized additive models, omission and commission errors, model calibration, climate predictors
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