Making better M axent models of species distributions: complexity, overfitting and evaluation
Abstract
Aim: Models of species niches and distributions have become invaluable to biogeographers over the past decade, yet several outstanding methodological issues remain. Here we address three critical ones: selecting appropriate evaluation data, detecting overfitting, and tuning program settings to approximate optimal model complexity. We integrate solutions to these issues for Maxent models, using the Caribbean spiny pocket mouse, H eteromys anomalus , as an example. Location: N orth‐western S outh A merica. Methods: We partitioned data into calibration and evaluation datasets via three variations of k ‐fold cross‐validation: randomly partitioned, geographically structured and masked geographically structured (which restricts background data to regions corresponding to calibration localities). Then, we carried out tuning experiments by varying the level of regularization, which controls model complexity. Finally, we gauged performance by quantifying discriminatory ability and overfitting, as well as via visual inspections of maps of the predictions in geography. Results: Performance varied among data‐partitioning approaches and among regularization multipliers. The randomly partitioned approach inflated estimates of model performance and the geographically structured approach showed high overfitting. In contrast, the masked geographically structured approach allowed selection of high‐performing models based on all criteria. Discriminatory ability showed a slight peak in performance around the default regularization multiplier. However, regularization levels two to four times higher than the default yielded substantially lower overfitting. Visual inspection of maps of model predictions coincided with the quantitative evaluations. Main conclusions: Species‐specific tuning of model parameters can improve the performance of Maxent models. Further, accurate estimates of model performance and overfitting depend on using independent evaluation data. These strategies for model evaluation may be useful for other modelling methods as well.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Using a combined method to generate background points reduces susceptibility to extreme extrapolation errors and overfitting induced by spatially constrained methods.
“At the same time, this method also reduces the susceptibility of extreme extrapolation errors and over fi tting induced by spatially constrained methods, by assigning a percentage of the background points to be sampled randomly from the entire environmental extent (Radosavljevic and Anderson, 2014).”
From Projecting future climate change impacts on the distribution of the ‘Octopus vulgaris species complex’ (2022) · cites this paper as Radosavljevic and Anderson, 2014
Cites
The art of modelling range-shifting species: <i>The art of modelling range-shifting species</i>
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 · see citing works
Warren, D. L., & Seifert, S. N. (2011) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/10-1171.1 · Cited by 2,312 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The global distribution of known and undiscovered ant biodiversity
Kass, J. M., Guénard, B., Dudley, K. L., Jenkins, C. N., Azuma, F., Fisher, B. L., Parr, C. L., Gibb, H., Longino, J. T., Ward, P. S., et al. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abp9908 · Cited by 194 · see citing works
Environmental filtering improves ecological niche models across multiple scales
Castellanos, A. A., Huntley, J. W., Voelker, G., & Lawing, A. M. (2019) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.13142 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
Oliveira, S., Rocha, J., Sousa, C. A., & Capinha, C. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-89096-5 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
megaSDM: Integrating dispersal and time-step analyses into species distribution models
Shipley, B. R., Bach, R., Do, Y., Strathearn, H., McGuire, J. L., & Dilkina, B. (2022) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.05450 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Borges, F. O., Guerreiro, M., Santos, C. P., Paula, J. R., & Rosa, R. (2022) · Frontiers in Marine Science · doi:10.3389/fmars.2022.1018766 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
“At the same time, this method also reduces the susceptibility of extreme extrapolation errors and overfitting induced by spatially constrained methods, by assigning a percentage of the background points to be sampled randomly from the entire environmental extent (Radosavljevic and Anderson, 2014).”
Method
- Authors
- Radosavljevic, A., & Anderson, R. P.
- Affiliations
- Department of Biology City College of the City University of New York New York NY 10031 USA
- The Graduate Center, CUNY (US)
- ORCID
- Anderson, Robert P.
- Venue
- Journal of Biogeography
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-12-06
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 629-643
- ISSN
- 0305-0270 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2699
- OpenAlex
- W2172138805
- Cited by
- 1,723
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 191 · 2025: 209 · 2024: 212 · 2023: 178 · 2022: 199 · 2021: 171 · 2020: 133 · 2019: 144 · 2018: 95 · 2017: 78 · 2016: 60 · 2015: 39 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 25.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Biogeography (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- US National Science Foundation (NSF DEB-0717357, DEB-1119915)
- International Biogeography Society
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecological Modeling › Species Distribution and Climate Change
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
- Keywords
- MaxEnt, species distribution modeling, overfitting, model complexity, regularization, k-fold cross-validation, model evaluation, discriminatory ability, Heteromys anomalus, spiny pocket mouse, parameter tuning
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