The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Selecting thresholds for the prediction of species occurrence with presence‐only data
Abstract
Aim: Species distribution models have been widely used to tackle ecological, evolutionary and conservation problems. Most species distribution modelling techniques produce continuous suitability predictions, but many real applications (e.g. reserve design, species invasion and climate change impact assessment) and model evaluations require binary outputs, and thresholds are needed for these transformations. Although there are many threshold selection methods for presence/absence data, it is unclear whether these are suitable for presence‐only data. In this paper, we investigate mathematically and empirically which of the existing threshold selection methods can be used confidently with presence‐only data. Location: We used real spatially explicit environmental data derived from the western part of the state of V ictoria, south‐eastern A ustralia, and simulated species distributions within this area. Methods: Thirteen existing threshold selection methods were investigated mathematically to see whether the same threshold can be produced using either presence/absence data or presence‐only data. We further adopted a simulation approach, created many virtual species with differing prevalences in a real landscape in south‐eastern A ustralia, generated data sets with different proportions of pseudo‐absences, built eight types of models with four modelling techniques, and investigated the behaviours of four threshold selection methods in these situations. Results: Three threshold selection methods were not affected by pseudo‐absences, including max SSS (which is based on maximizing the sum of sensitivity and specificity), the prevalence of model training data and the mean predicted value of a set of random points. Max SSS produced higher sensitivity in most cases and higher true skill statistic and kappa in many cases than the other methods. The other methods produced different thresholds from presence‐only data to those determined from presence/absence data. Main conclusions: Max SSS is a promising method for threshold selection when only presence data are available.
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
Selecting thresholds of occurrence in the prediction of species distributions
Liu, C., Berry, P. M., Dawson, T. P., & Pearson, R. G. (2005) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.0906-7590.2005.03957.x · Cited by 2,701
Self-citation
Cited by
Fourcade, Y., Besnard, A. G., & Secondi, J. (2018) · Global Ecology and Biogeography · doi:10.1111/geb.12684 · Cited by 500
Want to model a species niche? A step-by-step guideline on correlative ecological niche modelling
Sillero, N., Arenas-Castro, S., Enriquez‐Urzelai, U., Vale, C. G., Sousa-Guedes, D., Martínez-Freiría, F., Real, R., & Barbosa, A. M. (2021) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2021.109671 · Cited by 456
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
Liu, C., Newell, G., & White, M. (2019) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.03188 · Cited by 179
Self-citationInvasive alien pests threaten the carbon stored in Europe’s forests
Seidl, R., Klonner, G., Rammer, W., Essl, F., Moreno, A., Neumann, M., & Dullinger, S. (2018) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-018-04096-w · Cited by 153
Ramirez-Villegas, J., Cuesta, F., Devenish, C., Peralvo, M., Jarvis, A., & Arnillas, C. A. (2014) · Journal for Nature Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2014.03.007 · Cited by 138
Species 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
Pre-Columbian earth-builders settled along the entire southern rim of the Amazon
de Souza, J. G., Schaan, D. P., Robinson, M., Barbosa, A. D., Aragão, L. E. O. C., Marimon, B. H., Marimon, B. S., da Silva, I. B., Khan, S. S., Nakahara, F. R., et al. (2018) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-018-03510-7 · Cited by 98
van Zonneveld, M., Rakha, M., Tan, S. Y., Chou, Y.-Y., Chang, C.-H., Yen, J.-Y., Schafleitner, R., Nair, R., Naito, K., & Solberg, S. Ø. (2020) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-58646-8 · Cited by 65
Multiscale consensus habitat modeling for landscape level conservation prioritization
Poor, E. E., Scheick, B. K., & Mullinax, J. M. (2020) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-74716-3 · Cited by 27
Monadjem, A., Montauban, C., Webala, P. W., Laverty, T. M., Bakwo-Fils, E. M., Torrent, L., Tanshi, I., Kane, A., Rutrough, A. L., Waldien, D. L., et al. (2024) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/s41597-024-04170-7 · Cited by 25
Metadata
- Authors
- Liu, C., White, M., & Newell, G.
- Venue
- Journal of Biogeography
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-01-07
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 778-789
- ISSN
- 0305-0270 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2699
- OpenAlex
- W2043446899
- Cited by
- 1,613
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 32.48
- 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.