Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,901

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 76 of the 76 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Where is positional uncertainty a problem for species distribution modelling?

Naimi, Babak, Hamm, Nicholas A. S., Groen, Thomas A., Skidmore, Andrew K., Toxopeus, Albertus G.·2014·Ecography

Abstract

Species data held in museum and herbaria, survey data and opportunistically observed data are a substantial information resource. A key challenge in using these data is the uncertainty about where an observation is located. This is important when the data are used for species distribution modelling (SDM), because the coordinates are used to extract the environmental variables and thus, positional error may lead to inaccurate estimation of the species–environment relationship. The magnitude of this effect is related to the level of spatial autocorrelation in the environmental variables. Using local spatial association can be relevant because it can lead to the identification of the specific occurrence records that cause the largest drop in SDM accuracy. Therefore, in this study, we tested whether the SDM predictions are more affected by positional uncertainty originating from locations that have lower local spatial association in their predictors. We performed this experiment for Spain and the Netherlands, using simulated datasets derived from well known species distribution models (SDMs). We used the K statistic to quantify the local spatial association in the predictors at each species occurrence location. A probabilistic approach using Monte Carlo simulations was employed to introduce the error in the species locations. The results revealed that positional uncertainty in species occurrence data at locations with low local spatial association in predictors reduced the prediction accuracy of the SDMs. We propose that local spatial association is a way to identify the species occurrence records that require treatment for positional uncertainty. We also developed and present a tool in the R environment to target observations that are likely to create error in the output from SDMs as a result of positional uncertainty.

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.1600-0587.2013.00205.x

Cites

76 of 76 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 76 references

Cited by

See all 1,901

Metadata

Authors
Naimi, B., Hamm, N. A. S., Groen, T. A., Skidmore, A. K., & Toxopeus, A. G.
Venue
Ecography
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-09-04
Volume
37
Issue
2
Pages
191-203
ISSN
  • 0906-7590 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0587
OpenAlex
W2168113371
Cited by
1,901
References
76
FWCI
3.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Where is positional uncertainty a problem for species distribution modelling? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.00205.x
The paper
Naimi, B., Hamm, N. A. S., Groen, T. A., Skidmore, A. K., & Toxopeus, A. G. (2014). Where is positional uncertainty a problem for species distribution modelling? Ecography. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.00205.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.