The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Testing the predictive performance of distribution models
Abstract
Distribution models are used to predict the likelihood of occurrence or abundance of a species at locations where census data are not available. An integral part of modelling is the testing of model performance. We compared different schemes and measures for testing model performance using 79 species from the North American Breeding Bird Survey. The four testing schemes we compared featured increasing independence between test and training data: resubstitution, random data hold‐out and two spatially segregated data hold‐out designs. The different testing measures also addressed different levels of information content in the dependent variable: regression R 2 for absolute abundance, squared correlation coefficient r 2 for relative abundance and AUC/Somer’s D for presence/absence. We found that higher levels of independence between test and training data lead to lower assessments of prediction accuracy. Even for data collected independently, spatial autocorrelation leads to dependence between random hold‐out test data and training data, and thus to inflated measures of model performance. While there is a general awareness of the importance of autocorrelation to model building and hypothesis testing, its consequences via violation of independence between training and testing data have not been addressed systematically and comprehensively before. Furthermore, increasing information content (from correctly classifying presence/absence, to predicting relative abundance, to predicting absolute abundance) leads to decreasing predictive performance. The current tests for presence/absence distribution models are typically overly optimistic because a) the test and training data are not independent and b) the correct classification of presence/absence has a relatively low information content and thus capability to address ecological and conservation questions compared to a prediction of abundance. Meaningful evaluation of model performance requires testing on spatially independent data, if the intended application of the model is to predict into new geographic or climatic space, which arguably is the case for most applications of distribution models.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models
FIELDING, A. H., & BELL, J. F. (1997) · Environmental Conservation · doi:10.1017/s0376892997000088 · Cited by 6,956
Random forests for classification in ecology
Cutler, D. R., Edwards, T. C., Beard, K. H., Cutler, A., Hess, K. T., Gibson, J., & Lawler, J. J. (2007) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/07-0539.1 · Cited by 4,950
Novel climates, no‐analog communities, and ecological surprises
Williams, J. W., & Jackson, S. T. (2007) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1890/070037 · Cited by 1,736
Cited by
Cross‐validation strategies for data with temporal, spatial, hierarchical, or phylogenetic structure
Roberts, D. R., Bahn, V., Ciuti, S., Boyce, M. S., Elith, J., Guillera‐Arroita, G., Hauenstein, S., Lahoz‐Monfort, J. J., Schröder, B., Thuiller, W., et al. (2017) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.02881 · Cited by 3,689
Self-citationMaking better M axent models of species distributions: complexity, overfitting and evaluation
Radosavljevic, A., & Anderson, R. P. (2014) · Journal of Biogeography · doi:10.1111/jbi.12227 · Cited by 1,723
Valavi, R., Elith, J., Lahoz‐Monfort, J. J., & Guillera‐Arroita, G. (2019) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.13107 · Cited by 1,056
Valavi, R., Guillera‐Arroita, G., Lahoz‐Monfort, J. J., & Elith, J. (2022) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.1002/ecm.1486 · Cited by 830
Meyer, H., Reudenbach, C., Wöllauer, S., & Nauss, T. (2019) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2019.108815 · Cited by 509
Metadata
- Authors
- Bahn, V., & McGill, B. J.
- Venue
- Oikos
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-12-18
- Volume
- 122
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 321-331
- ISSN
- 0030-1299 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0706
- OpenAlex
- W2168694365
- Cited by
- 245
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 5.79
- 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
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.