The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Model-Based Control of Observer Bias for the Analysis of Presence-Only Data in Ecology
Open accessAbstract
Presence-only data, where information is available concerning species presence but not species absence, are subject to bias due to observers being more likely to visit and record sightings at some locations than others (hereafter "observer bias"). In this paper, we describe and evaluate a model-based approach to accounting for observer bias directly--by modelling presence locations as a function of known observer bias variables (such as accessibility variables) in addition to environmental variables, then conditioning on a common level of bias to make predictions of species occurrence free of such observer bias. We implement this idea using point process models with a LASSO penalty, a new presence-only method related to maximum entropy modelling, that implicitly addresses the "pseudo-absence problem" of where to locate pseudo-absences (and how many). The proposed method of bias-correction is evaluated using systematically collected presence/absence data for 62 plant species endemic to the Blue Mountains near Sydney, Australia. It is shown that modelling and controlling for observer bias significantly improves the accuracy of predictions made using presence-only data, and usually improves predictions as compared to pseudo-absence or "inventory" methods of bias correction based on absences from non-target species. Future research will consider the potential for improving the proposed bias-correction approach by estimating the observer bias simultaneously across multiple species.
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 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
Cressie, N. A. C. (1993) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/9781119115151 · Cited by 6,507
Standardizing catch and effort data: a review of recent approaches
Maunder, M. N., & Punt, A. E. (2004) · Fisheries Research · doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2004.08.002 · Cited by 1,336
Cited by
Is my species distribution model fit for purpose? Matching data and models to applications
Guillera‐Arroita, G., Lahoz‐Monfort, J. J., Elith, J., Gordon, A., Kujala, H., Lentini, P. E., McCarthy, M. A., Tingley, R., & Wintle, B. A. (2015) · Global Ecology and Biogeography · doi:10.1111/geb.12268 · Cited by 961
What do we gain from simplicity versus complexity in species distribution models?
Merow, C., Smith, M. J., Edwards, T. C., Guisan, A., McMahon, S. M., Normand, S., Thuiller, W., Wüest, R. O., Zimmermann, N. E., & Elith, J. (2014) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.00845 · Cited by 683
Guillera‐Arroita, G. (2017) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.02445 · Cited by 426
Assessing the reliability of species distribution projections in climate change research
Santini, L., Benítez‐López, A., Maiorano, L., Čengić, M., & Huijbregts, M. A. J. (2021) · Diversity and Distributions · doi:10.1111/ddi.13252 · Cited by 317
The recent past and promising future for data integration methods to estimate species’ distributions
Miller, D. A. W., Pacifici, K., Sanderlin, J. S., & Reich, B. J. (2019) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.13110 · Cited by 283
Metadata
- Authors
- Warton, D. I., Renner, I. W., & Ramp, D.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2013-11-18
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- e79168
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2027264855
- Cited by
- 199
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 5.34
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Model-Based Control of Observer Bias for the Analysis of Presence-Only Data in Ecology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0079168
- The paper
- Warton, D. I., Renner, I. W., & Ramp, D. (2013). Model-Based Control of Observer Bias for the Analysis of Presence-Only Data in Ecology. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079168
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.