The effect of a gradual response to the environment on species distribution modeling performance
Article first published online: 16 NOV 2011
© 2011 The Authors
Volume 35, Issue 6, pages 499–509, June 2012
How to Cite
Meynard, C. N. and Kaplan, D. M. (2012), The effect of a gradual response to the environment on species distribution modeling performance. Ecography, 35: 499–509. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2011.07157.x
- Issue published online: 1 JUN 2012
- Article first published online: 16 NOV 2011
- Paper manuscript accepted 15 July 2011
- 2008. Favourability functions versus probability of presence: advantages and misuses. Ecography 31: 417–422. and
- 2006. Evaluation of statistical models used for predicting plant species distributions: role of artificial data and theory. Ecol. Model. 199: 197–216.
- 1998. Biogeography. – Sinauer. and
- 2009. Do they? How do they? WHY do they differ? On finding reasons for differing performances of species distribution models. Ecography 32: 66–77. and
- 2009. Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 40: 677–697. and
- 2006. Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29: 129–151. .
- 2008. A working guide to boosted regression trees. J. Anim. Ecol. 77: 802–813. .
- 1997. A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ. Conserv. 24: 38–49. and
- 2009. Mapping species distributions: spatial inference and prediction. – Cambridge Univ. Press.
- 2005. Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol. Lett. 8: 993–1009. and
- 2006. Using niche-based models to improve the sampling of rare species. Conserv. Biol. 20: 501–511. .
- 1999. Metapopulation ecology. – Oxford Univ. Press.
- 2006. The effect of sample size and species characteristics on performance of different species distribution modeling methods. Ecography 29: 773–785. .
- 2001. Assessing habitat-suitability models with a virtual species. Ecol. Model. 145: 111–121. .
- 2005. Metacommunities: a framework for large-scale community ecology. – In: Holyoak M. et al. (eds), Metacommunities: spatial dynamics and ecological communities. Univ. of Chicago Press, pp. 1–31. .
- 2007. Threshold criteria for conversion of probability of species presence to either-or presence-absence. Acta Oecol. 31: 361–369. and
- 2009. The effect of prevalence and its interaction with sample size on the reliability of species distribution models. Community Ecol. 10: 196–205. .
- 2003. A systematic analysis of factors affecting the performance of climatic envelope models. Ecol. Appl. 13: 853–867. .
- 2005. Selecting thresholds of occurrence in the prediction of species distributions. Ecography 28: 385–393. .
- 2011. Exploring the effects of quantity and location of pseudo-absences and sampling biases on the performance of distribution models with limited point occurrence data. J. Nat. Conserv. 19: 1–7. and
- 2008. AUC: a misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 17: 145–151. .
- 2010. The uncertain nature of absences and their importance in species distribution modelling. Ecography 33: 103–114. .
- 2006. Occupancy estimation and modeling: inferring patterns and dynamics of species occurrence. – Elsevier. et al.
- 2007. Does scale matter in predicting species distributions? Case study with the marbled murrelet. Ecol. Appl. 17: 1474–1483.
- 2007. Predicting species distributions: a critical comparison of the most common statistical models using artificial species. J. Biogeogr. 34: 1455–1469. and
- 2009. Spatial conservation prioritization: quantitative methods and computational tools. – Oxford Univ. Press. et al.
- 2002. Spatial ecology of the three-toed woodpecker in managed forest landscapes. Silva Fenn. 36: 279–288. .
- 2000. Evaluating the predictive performance of habitat models developed using logistic regression. Ecol. Model. 133: 225–245. and
- 2009. Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo-absence data. Ecol. Appl. 19: 181–197. .
- 2006. Are niche-based species distribution models transferable in space? J. Biogeogr. 33: 1689–1703. .
- 2006. Obtaining environmental favourability functions from logistic regression. Environ. Ecol. Stat. 13: 237–245. .
- 2005. Factors affecting species distribution predictions: a simulation modeling experiment. Ecol. Appl. 15: 554–564. .
- 2011. Assessing the effect of prevalence on the predictive performance of species distribution models using simulated data. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 20: 181–192.
- 2009. The effect of species response form on species distribution model prediction and inference. Ecol. Model. 220: 2365–2379. and
- 2005. Species-specific traits associated to prediction errors in bird habitat suitability modelling. Ecol. Model. 185: 299–308. .
- 2008. The quest for a null model for macroecological patterns: geometry of species distributions at multiple spatial scales. Ecol. Lett. 11: 771–784. .
- 2010. Species traits affect the performance of species distribution models for plants in southern California. J. Veg. Sci. 21: 177–189. and
- 2002. Modern applied statistics with S. – Springer. and
- 2009. Presence-only data and the EM algorithm. Biometrics 65: 554–563. .
- 2005. Sensitivity of conservation planning to different approaches to using predicted species distribution data. Biol. Conserv. 122: 99–112. .
- 2009. Static species distribution models in dynamically changing systems: how good can predictions really be? Ecography 32: 733–744. .
- 2010. The virtual ecologist approach: simulating data and observers. Oikos 119: 622–635. .