Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 359

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Generalized models vs. classification tree analysis: Predicting spatial distributions of plant species at different scales

Thuiller, Wilfried, Araújo, Miguel B., Lavorel, Sandra·2003·Journal of Vegetation Science

Abstract

Abstract. Statistical models of the realized niche of species are increasingly used, but systematic comparisons of alternative methods are still limited. In particular, only few studies have explored the effect of scale in model outputs. In this paper, we investigate the predictive ability of three statistical methods (generalized linear models, generalized additive models and classification tree analysis) using species distribution data at three scales: fine (Catalonia), intermediate (Portugal) and coarse (Europe). Four Mediterranean tree species were modelled for comparison. Variables selected by models were relatively consistent across scales and the predictive accuracy of models varied only slightly. However, there were slight differences in the performance of methods. Classification tree analysis had a lower accuracy than the generalized methods, especially at finer scales. The performance of generalized linear models also increased with scale. At the fine scale GLM with linear terms showed better accuracy than GLM with quadratic and polynomial terms. This is probably because distributions at finer scales represent a linear sub‐sample of entire realized niches of species. In contrast to GLM, the performance of GAM was constant across scales being more data‐oriented. The predictive accuracy of GAM was always at least equal to other techniques, suggesting that this modelling approach is more robust to variations of scale because it can deal with any response shape.

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.1654-1103.2003.tb02199.x

Cites

48 of 48 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 48 references

Cited by

See all 359

Metadata

Authors
Thuiller, W., Araújo, M. B., & Lavorel, S.
Venue
Journal of Vegetation Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-04-09
Volume
14
Issue
5
Pages
669-680
ISSN
  • 1100-9233 (ISSN-L)
  • 1654-1103
OpenAlex
W4243871771
Cited by
359
References
48
FWCI
11.21
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: Generalized models vs. classification tree analysis: Predicting spatial distributions of plant species at different scales. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2003.tb02199.x
The paper
Thuiller, W., Araújo, M. B., & Lavorel, S. (2003). Generalized models vs. classification tree analysis: Predicting spatial distributions of plant species at different scales. Journal of Vegetation Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2003.tb02199.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.