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
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
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
Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso
Tibshirani, R. (1996) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1996.tb02080.x · Cited by 51,482
Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach.
Guthery, F. S., Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2003) · The Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2307/3802723 · Cited by 41,495
The Elements of Statistical Learning
Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. (2009) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7 · Cited by 25,970
The art of modelling range-shifting species: The art of modelling range-shifting species
Elith, J., Kearney, M., & Phillips, S. (2010) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.2041-210x.2010.00036.x · Cited by 2,813
Warren, D. L., & Seifert, S. N. (2011) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/10-1171.1 · Cited by 2,312
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 54
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Araujo M. and Peterson A. 2012. Uses and misuses of bioclimatic envelope modelling. Ecology in press. · DOI
- Austin M. 2002. Spatial prediction of species distribution: an interface between ecological theory and statistical modelling. Ecol. Model. 157: 101118. · DOI
- Austin M. 2007. Species distribution models and ecological theory: a critical assessment and some possible new approaches. Ecol. Model. 200: 119. · DOI
- Baasch D. etal. 2010. An evaluation of three statistical methods used to model resource selection. Ecol. Model. 221: 565574. · DOI
- Barve N. etal. 2011. The crucial role of the accessible area in ecological niche modeling and species distribution modeling. Ecol. Model. 222: 18101819. · DOI
- Chakraborty A. etal. 2011. Point pattern modelling for degraded presence‐only data over large regions. J. R. Stat. Soc. C 60: 757776. · DOI
- Cressie N. A. C. 1993. Spatial statistics for spatial data. Wiley‐Interscience. · DOI · Paper page
- Dudik M. and Phillips S. 2009. Generative and discriminative learning with unknown labeling bias. Adv. Neural Inform. Process. Syst. 21: 18.
- Dudik M. etal. 2004. Performance guarantees for regularized maximum entropy density estimation. Learn. Theory Proc. 3120: 472486. · DOI
- Dudik M. etal. 2005. Correcting sample selection bias in maximum entropy density estimation. Adv. Neural Inform. Process. Syst. 17: 18.
- Elith J. etal. 2011. A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Divers. Distrib. 17: 4357. · DOI · Paper page
- Fithian W. and Hastie T. 2012. Finite‐sample equivalence of several statistical models for presence‐only data. <http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.6950v1>. · arXiv
- 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
- Graham C. etal. 2004. New developments in museum‐based informatics and applications in biodiversity analysis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19: 497503. · DOI
- He F. 2010. Maximum entropy logistic regression and species abundance. Oikos 119: 578582. · DOI
- 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
- Hijmans R. J. 2012. Cross‐validation of species distribution models: removing spatial sorting bias and calibration with a null model. Ecology 93: 679688. · DOI
- Hijmans R. J. etal. 2005. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 25: 19651978. · DOI
- Jaynes E. 2003. Probability theory: the logic of science. Cambridge Univ. Press. · DOI · Paper page
- Johnson C. J. etal. 2006. Resource selection functions based on use‐availability data: theoretical motivation and evaluation methods. J. Wildl. Manage. 70: 347357. · DOI
- Keating K. and Cherry S. 2004. Use and interpretation of logistic regression in habitat‐selection studies. J. Wildl. Manage. 68: 774789. · DOI
- Kery M. etal. 2010. Predicting species distributions from checklist data using site‐occupancy models. J. Biogeogr. 37: 18511862. · DOI
- Latimer A. etal. 2006. Building statistical models to analyze species distributions. Ecol. Appl. 16: 3350. · DOI
- Lele S. R. and Keim J. L. 2006. Weighted distributions and estimation of resource selection probability functions. Ecology 87: 30213028. · DOI
- Linder H. 2005. Evolution of diversity: the Cape flora. Trends Plant Sci. 10: 536541. · DOI
- Liu C. etal. 2005. Selecting thresholds of occurrence in the prediction of species distributions. Ecography 28: 385393. · DOI · Paper page
- Liu C. etal. 2010. Measuring and comparing the accuracy of species distribution models with presenceabsence data. Ecography 34: 232243. · DOI
- Lobo J. etal. 2008. AUC: a misleading measure of the per formance of predictive distribution models. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 17: 145151. · DOI · Paper page
- Newbold T. etal. 2010. Testing the accuracy of species distribution models using species records from a new field survey. Oikos 119: 13261334. · DOI
- Peterson A. T. etal. 2011. Ecological niches and geographic distributions. Princeton Univ. Press. · DOI
- Phillips S. and Dudik M. 2008. Modeling of species distributions with MaxEnt: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography 31: 161. · DOI · Paper page
- Phillips S. and Elith J. 2010. POC plots: calibrating species distribution models with presence‐only data. Ecology 91: 24762484. · DOI
- Phillips S. etal. 2006. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Model. 190: 231259. · DOI · Paper page
- 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
- Ponder W. etal. 2001. Evaluation of museum collection data for use in biodiversity assessment. Conserv. Biol. 15: 648657. · DOI
- Raes N. etal. 2009. Botanical richness and endemicity patterns of Borneo derived from species distribution models. Ecography 32: 180192. · DOI
- Rebelo T. 2001. A field guide to the Proteas of southern Africa. Fernwood Press.
- Reddy S. and Dvalos L. 2003. Geographical sampling bias and its implications for conservation priorities in Africa. J. Biogeogr. 30: 17191727. · DOI
- 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
- 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
- Sastre P. and Lobo J. M. 2009. Taxonomist survey biases and the unveiling of biodiversity patterns. Biol. Conserv. 142: 462467. · DOI
- Syfert M. etal. 2013. Accounting for sampling bias can dramatically improve the predictive accuracy of presence‐only species distribution models. PloS One in press.
- 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
- Ward G. etal. 2009. Presence‐only data and the EM algorithm. Biometrics 65: 554563. · DOI
- Warren D. etal. 2010. ENMTools: a toolbox for comparative studies of environmental niche models. Ecography 33: 607611. · DOI · Paper page
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Yackulic C. B. etal. 2012. Presence‐only modelling using MAXENT: when can we trust the inferences? Methods Ecol. Evol. in press. · DOI
- 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
A checklist for maximizing reproducibility of ecological niche models
Feng, X., Park, D. S., Walker, C., Peterson, A. T., Merow, C., & Papeş, M. (2019) · Nature Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1038/s41559-019-0972-5 · Cited by 323
Self-citationSpecies Distribution Modeling for Machine Learning Practitioners: A Review
Beery, S., Cole, E., Parker, J., Perona, P., & Winner, K. (2021) · ACM SIGCAS Conference on Computing and Sustainable Societies · doi:10.1145/3460112.3471966 · Cited by 100
Substantial declines in urban tree habitat predicted under climate change
Burley, H., Beaumont, L. J., Ossola, A., Baumgartner, J. B., Gallagher, R., Laffan, S., Esperon-Rodriguez, M., Manea, A., & Leishman, M. R. (2019) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.287 · Cited by 90
Zacarias, D. A. (2020) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-020-02722-5 · Cited by 65
Bouchet, P. J., & Meeuwig, J. J. (2015) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1890/es14-00380.1 · Cited by 59
A maxent predictive model for hunter-gatherer sites in the southern pampas, argentina
Rafuse, D. J. (2021) · Open Quaternary · doi:10.5334/oq.97 · Cited by 17
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