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
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.
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
Classification and Regression Trees.
Gordon, A. D., Breiman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olshen, R. A., & Stone, C. J. (1984) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2530946 · Cited by 23,522
McCullagh, P., & Nelder, J. A. (1989) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-3242-6 · Cited by 16,836
Measuring the Accuracy of Diagnostic Systems
Swets, J. A. (1988) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.3287615 · Cited by 10,058
Koyak, R. A., Hastie, T. J., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1991) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2290538 · Cited by 7,596
Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology
Guisan, A., & Zimmermann, N. E. (2000) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/s0304-3800(00)00354-9 · Cited by 7,359
Hanley, J. A., & McNeil, B. J. (1983) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiology.148.3.6878708 · Cited by 7,016
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
Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods
Newcombe, R. G. (1998) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19980430)17:8<857::aid-sim777>3.0.co;2-e · Cited by 5,107
Evaluating the predictive performance of habitat models developed using logistic regression
Pearce, J., & Ferrier, S. (2000) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/s0304-3800(00)00322-7 · Cited by 2,002
Climate and Plant Distribution
Eyre, S. R., & Woodward, F. I. (1988) · The Geographical Journal · doi:10.2307/633873 · Cited by 1,823
Cited by
Five (or so) challenges for species distribution modelling
Araújo, M. B., & Guisan, A. (2006) · Journal of Biogeography · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2006.01584.x · Cited by 1,901
Self-citationAn evaluation of methods for modelling species distributions
Segurado, P., & Araújo, M. B. (2004) · Journal of Biogeography · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2004.01076.x · Cited by 875
Self-citationPatterns and uncertainties of species' range shifts under climate change
Thuiller, W. (2004) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00859.x · Cited by 873
Self-citationWhy does phenology drive species distribution?
Chuine, I. (2010) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0142 · Cited by 734
A comparative evaluation of presence‐only methods for modelling species distribution
Tsoar, A., Allouche, O., Steinitz, O., Rotem, D., & Kadmon, R. (2007) · Diversity and Distributions · doi:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2007.00346.x · Cited by 538
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.