The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
POC plots: calibrating species distribution models with presence‐only data
Abstract
Statistical models are widely used for predicting species' geographic distributions and for analyzing species' responses to climatic and other predictor variables. Their predictive performance can be characterized in two complementary ways: discrimination, the ability to distinguish between occupied and unoccupied sites, and calibration, the extent to which a model correctly predicts conditional probability of presence. The most common measures of model performance, such as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), measure only discrimination. In contrast, we introduce a new tool for measuring model calibration: the presence‐only calibration plot, or POC plot. This tool relies on presence‐only evaluation data, which are more widely available than presence–absence evaluation data, to determine whether predictions are proportional to conditional probability of presence. We generalize the predicted/expected curves of Hirzel et al. to produce a presence‐only analogue of traditional (presence–absence) calibration curves. POC plots facilitate visual exploration of model calibration, and can be used to recalibrate badly calibrated models. We demonstrate their use by recalibrating models made by the DOMAIN modeling method on a comprehensive set of 226 species from six regions of the world, significantly improving DOMAIN's predictive performance.
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
Predicting good probabilities with supervised learning
Niculescu-Mizil, A., & Caruana, R. (2005) · Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Machine learning - ICML '05 · doi:10.1145/1102351.1102430 · Cited by 1,884
Two Further Applications of a Model for Binary Regression
Cox, D. R. (1958) · Biometrika · doi:10.2307/2333203 · Cited by 557
Cited by
Merow, C., Smith, M. J., & Silander, J. A. (2013) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.07872.x · Cited by 3,392
Making better M axent models of species distributions: complexity, overfitting and evaluation
Radosavljevic, A., & Anderson, R. P. (2014) · Journal of Biogeography · doi:10.1111/jbi.12227 · Cited by 1,723
Valavi, R., Guillera‐Arroita, G., Lahoz‐Monfort, J. J., & Elith, J. (2022) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.1002/ecm.1486 · Cited by 830
Self-citationFourcade, 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
Metadata
- Authors
- Phillips, S. J., & Elith, J.
- Venue
- Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-08
- Volume
- 91
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 2476-2484
- ISSN
- 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-9170
- OpenAlex
- W1975652353
- Cited by
- 191
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 5.10
- 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: POC plots: calibrating species distribution models with presence‐only data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/09-0760.1
- The paper
- Phillips, S. J., & Elith, J. (2010). POC plots: calibrating species distribution models with presence‐only data. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1890/09-0760.1
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.