The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Effects of Sampling Bias and Model Complexity on the Predictive Performance of MaxEnt Species Distribution Models
Open accessAbstract
Species distribution models (SDMs) trained on presence-only data are frequently used in ecological research and conservation planning. However, users of SDM software are faced with a variety of options, and it is not always obvious how selecting one option over another will affect model performance. Working with MaxEnt software and with tree fern presence data from New Zealand, we assessed whether (a) choosing to correct for geographical sampling bias and (b) using complex environmental response curves have strong effects on goodness of fit. SDMs were trained on tree fern data, obtained from an online biodiversity data portal, with two sources that differed in size and geographical sampling bias: a small, widely-distributed set of herbarium specimens and a large, spatially clustered set of ecological survey records. We attempted to correct for geographical sampling bias by incorporating sampling bias grids in the SDMs, created from all georeferenced vascular plants in the datasets, and explored model complexity issues by fitting a wide variety of environmental response curves (known as "feature types" in MaxEnt). In each case, goodness of fit was assessed by comparing predicted range maps with tree fern presences and absences using an independent national dataset to validate the SDMs. We found that correcting for geographical sampling bias led to major improvements in goodness of fit, but did not entirely resolve the problem: predictions made with clustered ecological data were inferior to those made with the herbarium dataset, even after sampling bias correction. We also found that the choice of feature type had negligible effects on predictive performance, indicating that simple feature types may be sufficient once sampling bias is accounted for. Our study emphasizes the importance of reducing geographical sampling bias, where possible, in datasets used to train SDMs, and the effectiveness and essentialness of sampling bias correction within MaxEnt.
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
A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists
Elith, J., Phillips, S. J., Hastie, T., Dudík, M., Chee, Y. E., & Yates, C. J. (2011) · Diversity and Distributions · doi:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00725.x · Cited by 6,699
The art of modelling range-shifting species: The art of modelling range-shifting species
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
Warren, D. L., & Seifert, S. N. (2011) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/10-1171.1 · Cited by 2,312
Cited by
Opening the black box: an open‐source release of Maxent
Phillips, S. J., Anderson, R. P., Dudík, M., Schapire, R. E., & Blair, M. E. (2017) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.03049 · Cited by 2,729
Muscarella, R., Galante, P. J., Soley‐Guardia, M., Boria, R. A., Kass, J. M., Uriarte, M., & Anderson, R. P. (2014) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.12261 · Cited by 1,962
The importance of correcting for sampling bias in MaxEnt species distribution models
Kramer‐Schadt, S., Niedballa, J., Pilgrim, J. D., Schröder, B., Lindenborn, J., Reinfelder, V., Stillfried, M., Heckmann, I., Scharf, A. K., Augeri, D. M., et al. (2013) · Diversity and Distributions · doi:10.1111/ddi.12096 · Cited by 1,321
Fourcade, Y., Engler, J. O., Rödder, D., & Secondi, J. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0097122 · Cited by 1,098
Fourcade, Y., Besnard, A. G., & Secondi, J. (2018) · Global Ecology and Biogeography · doi:10.1111/geb.12684 · Cited by 500
Morales, N. S., Fernández, I. C., & Baca-González, V. (2017) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.3093 · Cited by 464
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
Bouchet, P. J., & Meeuwig, J. J. (2015) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1890/es14-00380.1 · Cited by 59
Perkins-Taylor, I. E., & Frey, J. K. (2020) · Journal of Mammalogy · doi:10.1093/jmammal/gyaa057 · Cited by 37
Wang, W., Tang, X., Zhu, Q., Pan, K., Hu, Q., He, M., & Li, J. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111587 · Cited by 32
Metadata
- Authors
- Syfert, M. M., Smith, M. J., & Coomes, D. A.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2013-02-14
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e55158
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2057691392
- Cited by
- 612
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 24.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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.