Cited by 3,392

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A practical guide to MaxEnt for modeling species' distributions: what it does, and why inputs and settings matter

Merow, Cory, Smith, Matthew J., Silander, John A.·2013·Ecography

Abstract

The MaxEnt software package is one of the most popular tools for species distribution and environmental niche modeling, with over 1000 published applications since 2006. Its popularity is likely for two reasons: 1) MaxEnt typically outperforms other methods based on predictive accuracy and 2) the software is particularly easy to use. MaxEnt users must make a number of decisions about how they should select their input data and choose from a wide variety of settings in the software package to build models from these data. The underlying basis for making these decisions is unclear in many studies, and default settings are apparently chosen, even though alternative settings are often more appropriate. In this paper, we provide a detailed explanation of how MaxEnt works and a prospectus on modeling options to enable users to make informed decisions when preparing data, choosing settings and interpreting output. We explain how the choice of background samples reflects prior assumptions, how nonlinear functions of environmental variables (features) are created and selected, how to account for environmentally biased sampling, the interpretation of the various types of model output and the challenges for model evaluation. We demonstrate MaxEnt's calculations using both simplified simulated data and occurrence data from South Africa on species of the flowering plant family Proteaceae. Throughout, we show how MaxEnt's outputs vary in response to different settings to highlight the need for making biologically motivated modeling decisions.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.07872.x

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The AUC is the probability that a randomly chosen presence site will be ranked above a randomly chosen absence site.

    “The AUC is the probability that a randomly chosen presence site will be ranked above a randomly chosen absence site (Merow, Smith & Silander 2013; Phillips and Dudík 2008).”

    From A maxent predictive model for hunter-gatherer sites in the southern pampas, argentina (2021) · cites this paper as Merow, Smith & Silander 2013

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 54

  1. Anderson R. P. 2012. Harnessing the world'fs biodiversity data: promise and peril in ecological niche modeling of species distributions. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1260: 6680. · DOI
  2. Anderson R. and Raza A. 2010. The effect of the extent of the study region on GIS models of species geographic distributions and estimates of niche evolution: preliminary tests with montane rodents (genus Nephelomys) in Venezuela. J. Biogeogr. 37: 13781393. · DOI
  3. Anderson R. P. and Gonzalez I. 2011. Species‐specific tuning increases robustness to sampling bias in models of species distributions: an implementation with MaxEnt. Ecol. Model. 222: 27962811. · DOI
  4. Araujo M. and Peterson A. 2012. Uses and misuses of bioclimatic envelope modelling. Ecology in press. · DOI
  5. Austin M. 2002. Spatial prediction of species distribution: an interface between ecological theory and statistical modelling. Ecol. Model. 157: 101118. · DOI
  6. Austin M. 2007. Species distribution models and ecological theory: a critical assessment and some possible new approaches. Ecol. Model. 200: 119. · DOI
  7. Baasch D. etal. 2010. An evaluation of three statistical methods used to model resource selection. Ecol. Model. 221: 565574. · DOI
  8. Barve N. etal. 2011. The crucial role of the accessible area in ecological niche modeling and species distribution modeling. Ecol. Model. 222: 18101819. · DOI
  9. Chakraborty A. etal. 2011. Point pattern modelling for degraded presence‐only data over large regions. J. R. Stat. Soc. C 60: 757776. · DOI
  10. Cressie N. A. C. 1993. Spatial statistics for spatial data. Wiley‐Interscience. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Dudik M. and Phillips S. 2009. Generative and discriminative learning with unknown labeling bias. Adv. Neural Inform. Process. Syst. 21: 18.
  12. Dudik M. etal. 2004. Performance guarantees for regularized maximum entropy density estimation. Learn. Theory Proc. 3120: 472486. · DOI
  13. Dudik M. etal. 2005. Correcting sample selection bias in maximum entropy density estimation. Adv. Neural Inform. Process. Syst. 17: 18.
  14. Elith J. etal. 2011. A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Divers. Distrib. 17: 4357. · DOI · Paper page
  15. Fithian W. and Hastie T. 2012. Finite‐sample equivalence of several statistical models for presence‐only data. <http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.6950v1>. · arXiv
  16. Giovanelli J. G. R. etal. 2010. Modeling a spatially restricted distribution in the Neotropics: how the size of calibration area affects the performance of five presence‐only methods. Ecol. Model. 221: 215224. · DOI
  17. Graham C. etal. 2004. New developments in museum‐based informatics and applications in biodiversity analysis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19: 497503. · DOI
  18. He F. 2010. Maximum entropy logistic regression and species abundance. Oikos 119: 578582. · DOI
  19. Hernandez P. A. etal. 2006. The effect of sample size and species characteristics on performance of different species distribution modeling methods. Ecography 29: 773785. · DOI
  20. Hijmans R. J. 2012. Cross‐validation of species distribution models: removing spatial sorting bias and calibration with a null model. Ecology 93: 679688. · DOI
  21. Hijmans R. J. etal. 2005. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 25: 19651978. · DOI
  22. Jaynes E. 2003. Probability theory: the logic of science. Cambridge Univ. Press. · DOI · Paper page
  23. Johnson C. J. etal. 2006. Resource selection functions based on use‐availability data: theoretical motivation and evaluation methods. J. Wildl. Manage. 70: 347357. · DOI
  24. Keating K. and Cherry S. 2004. Use and interpretation of logistic regression in habitat‐selection studies. J. Wildl. Manage. 68: 774789. · DOI
  25. Kery M. etal. 2010. Predicting species distributions from checklist data using site‐occupancy models. J. Biogeogr. 37: 18511862. · DOI
  26. Latimer A. etal. 2006. Building statistical models to analyze species distributions. Ecol. Appl. 16: 3350. · DOI
  27. Lele S. R. and Keim J. L. 2006. Weighted distributions and estimation of resource selection probability functions. Ecology 87: 30213028. · DOI
  28. Linder H. 2005. Evolution of diversity: the Cape flora. Trends Plant Sci. 10: 536541. · DOI
  29. Liu C. etal. 2005. Selecting thresholds of occurrence in the prediction of species distributions. Ecography 28: 385393. · DOI · Paper page
  30. Liu C. etal. 2010. Measuring and comparing the accuracy of species distribution models with presenceabsence data. Ecography 34: 232243. · DOI
  31. Lobo J. etal. 2008. AUC: a misleading measure of the per formance of predictive distribution models. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 17: 145151. · DOI · Paper page
  32. Newbold T. etal. 2010. Testing the accuracy of species distribution models using species records from a new field survey. Oikos 119: 13261334. · DOI
  33. Peterson A. T. etal. 2011. Ecological niches and geographic distributions. Princeton Univ. Press. · DOI
  34. Phillips S. and Dudik M. 2008. Modeling of species distributions with MaxEnt: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography 31: 161. · DOI · Paper page
  35. Phillips S. and Elith J. 2010. POC plots: calibrating species distribution models with presence‐only data. Ecology 91: 24762484. · DOI
  36. Phillips S. etal. 2006. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Model. 190: 231259. · DOI · Paper page
  37. Phillips S. etal. 2009. Sample selection bias and presence‐only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo‐absence data. Ecol. Appl. 19: 181197. · DOI · Paper page
  38. Ponder W. etal. 2001. Evaluation of museum collection data for use in biodiversity assessment. Conserv. Biol. 15: 648657. · DOI
  39. Raes N. etal. 2009. Botanical richness and endemicity patterns of Borneo derived from species distribution models. Ecography 32: 180192. · DOI
  40. Rebelo T. 2001. A field guide to the Proteas of southern Africa. Fernwood Press.
  41. Reddy S. and Dvalos L. 2003. Geographical sampling bias and its implications for conservation priorities in Africa. J. Biogeogr. 30: 17191727. · DOI
  42. Renner I. W. and Warton D. I. 2012. Equivalence of MAXENT and Poisson point process models for species distribution modeling in ecology. Biometrics in press. · DOI
  43. Royle J. A. etal. 2012. Likelihood analysis of species occurrence probability from presence‐only data for modelling species distributions. Methods Ecol. Evol. in press. · DOI
  44. Sastre P. and Lobo J. M. 2009. Taxonomist survey biases and the unveiling of biodiversity patterns. Biol. Conserv. 142: 462467. · DOI
  45. Syfert M. etal. 2013. Accounting for sampling bias can dramatically improve the predictive accuracy of presence‐only species distribution models. PloS One in press.
  46. VanDerWal J. etal. 2009. Selecting pseudo‐absence data for presence‐only distribution modeling: how far should you stray from what you know? Ecol. Model. 220: 589594. · DOI · Paper page
  47. Ward G. etal. 2009. Presence‐only data and the EM algorithm. Biometrics 65: 554563. · DOI
  48. Warren D. etal. 2010. ENMTools: a toolbox for comparative studies of environmental niche models. Ecography 33: 607611. · DOI · Paper page
  49. Warton D. I. and Shepherd L. C. 2010. Poisson point process models solve the “pseudo‐absence problem” for presence‐only data in ecology. Ann. Appl. Stat. 4: 13831402. · DOI
  50. Webber B. L. etal. 2011. Modelling horses for novel climate courses: insights from projecting potential distributions of native and alien Australian acacias with correlative and mechanistic models. Divers. Distrib. 17: 9781000. · DOI
  51. Wenger S. J. and Olden J. D. 2012. Assessing transferability of ecological models: an underappreciated aspect of statistical validation. Methods Ecol. Evol. in press. · DOI
  52. Wisz M. S. and Guisan A. 2009. Do pseudo‐absence selection strategies influence species distribution models and their predictions? An information‐theoretic approach based on simulated data. BMC Ecol. 9: 8. · DOI
  53. Yackulic C. B. etal. 2012. Presence‐only modelling using MAXENT: when can we trust the inferences? Methods Ecol. Evol. in press. · DOI
  54. Yates C. J. etal. 2010. Assessing the impacts of climate change and land transformation on Banksiain the South West Australian Floristic Region. Divers. Distrib. 16: 187201. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Merow, C., Smith, M. J., & Silander, J. A.
Affiliations
  • Univ. of Connecticut, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology 75 North Eagleville Rd. Storrs CT 06269 USA
  • Computational Ecology and Environmental Science Group, Computational Science Laboratory, Microsoft Research Ltd. 21 Station Road Cambridge CB1 2FB UK
Venue
Ecography
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-06-18
Volume
36
Issue
10
Pages
1058-1069
ISSN
  • 0906-7590
  • 1600-0587
Cited by
3,392
References
5
Language
en

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