Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 281

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Does the interpolation accuracy of species distribution models come at the expense of transferability?

Open access
Heikkinen, Risto K., Marmion, Mathieu, Luoto, Miska·2012·Ecography

Abstract

Model transferability (extrapolative accuracy) is one important feature in species distribution models, required in several ecological and conservation biological applications. This study uses 10 modelling techniques and nationwide data on both (1) species distribution of birds, butterflies, and plants and (2) climate and land cover in Finland to investigate whether good interpolative prediction accuracy for models comes at the expense of transferability – i.e. markedly worse performance in new areas. Models’ interpolation and extrapolation performance was primarily assessed using AUC (the area under the curve of a receiver characteristic plot) and Kappa statistics, with supplementary comparisons examining model sensitivity and specificity values. Our AUC and Kappa results show that extrapolation to new areas is a greater challenge for all included modelling techniques than simple filling of gaps in a well‐sampled area, but there are also differences among the techniques in the degree of transferability. Among the machine‐learning modelling techniques, MAXENT, generalized boosting methods (GBM), and artificial neural networks (ANN) showed good transferability while the performance of GARP and random forest (RF) decreased notably in extrapolation. Among the regression‐based methods, generalized additive models (GAM) and generalized linear models (GLM) showed good transferability. A desirable combination of good prediction accuracy and good transferability was evident for three modelling techniques: MAXENT, GBM, and GAM. However, examination of model sensitivity and specificity revealed that model types may differ in their tendencies to either increased over‐prediction of presences or absences in extrapolation, and some of the methods show contrasting changes in sensitivity vs specificity (e.g. ANN and GARP). Among the three species groups, the best transferability was seen with birds, followed closely by butterflies, whereas reliable extrapolation for plant species distribution models appears to be a major challenge at least at this scale. Overall, detailed knowledge of the behaviour of different techniques in various study settings and with different species groups is of utmost importance in predictive modelling.

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.1600-0587.2011.06999.x

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 281

Metadata

Authors
Heikkinen, R. K., Marmion, M., & Luoto, M.
Venue
Ecography
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-03
Volume
35
Issue
3
Pages
276-288
ISSN
  • 0906-7590 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0587
OpenAlex
W2042783301
Cited by
281
References
3
FWCI
6.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Does the interpolation accuracy of species distribution models come at the expense of transferability? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2011.06999.x
The paper
Heikkinen, R. K., Marmion, M., & Luoto, M. (2012). Does the interpolation accuracy of species distribution models come at the expense of transferability? Ecography. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2011.06999.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.