Environmental filters reduce the effects of sampling bias and improve predictions of ecological niche models
Article first published online: 20 JAN 2014
© 2014 The Authors
Special Issue: IBS special issue
Volume 37, Issue 11, pages 1084–1091, November 2014
How to Cite
Varela, S., Anderson, R. P., García-Valdés, R. and Fernández-González, F. (2014), Environmental filters reduce the effects of sampling bias and improve predictions of ecological niche models. Ecography, 37: 1084–1091. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.00441.x
- Issue published online: 31 OCT 2014
- Article first published online: 20 JAN 2014
- Manuscript Accepted: 12 SEP 2013
- the Education for Competitiveness Operational Programme (ECOP) project ‘Support of establishment, development and mobility of quality research teams at the Charles Univ.‘
- the European Science Foundation and Czech Republic. Grant Number: CZ.1.07/2.3.00/30.0022
- the project ‘Potential effects of climate change on Natura 2000 conservation targets in Castilla-La Mancha (CliChe)‘. Grant Number: POIC10-0311-0585
- the Regional Government of Castilla-La Mancha
- the U. S. National Science Foundation (NSF)
- 2010. Sampling in ecology and evolution – bridging the gap between theory and practice. – Ecography 33: 1028–1037. et al.
- 2012. Harnessing the world's biodiversity data: promise and peril in ecological niche modeling of species distributions. – Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1260: 66–80. .
- 2010. The effect of the extent of the study region on GIS models of species geographic distributions and estimates of niche evolution: preliminary tests with montane rodents (genus Nephelomys) in Venezuela. – J. Biogeogr. 37: 1378–1393. and .
- 2011. Species-specific tuning increases robustness to sampling bias in models of species distributions: an implementation with Maxent. – Ecol. Model. 222: 2796–2811. and .
- 2006. Five (or so) challenges for species distribution modelling. – J. Biogeogr. 33: 1677–1688. and .
- 2012. Uses and misuses of bioclimatic envelope modeling. – Ecology 93: 1527–1539. and .
- 2011. An evaluation of environmental factors affecting species distributions. – Ecol. Model. 222: 524–531. et al.
- 2006. Evaluation of statistical models used for predicting plant species distributions: role of artificial data and theory. – Ecol. Model. 199: 197–216. et al.
- 2006. Error and uncertainty in habitat models. – J. Appl. Ecol. 43: 413–423. and .
- 2010. Distorted views of biodiversity: spatial and temporal bias in species occurrence data. – PLoS Biol. 8: e1000385. et al.
- 1995. Spatial variation in abundance. – Ecology 76: 2028–2043. et al.
- 2003. IDRISI Kilimanjaro. Guide to GIS and image processing. – Clark Labs, Clark Univ. .
- 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 .
- 2010. The art of modelling range-shifting species. – Methods Ecol. Evol. 1: 330–342. et al.
- 2011. A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. – Divers. Distrib. 17: 43–57. et al.
- 2012. Assessment of climate change in Europe from an ensemble of regional climate models by the use of Köppen–Trewartha classification. – Int. J. Climatol. 33: 2157–2166. et al.
- 2007. Towards a collaborative, global infrastructure for biodiversity assessment. – Ecol. Lett. 10: 663–672. et al.
- 2004. Historical and present distribution of coyote (Canis latrans) in Mexico and Central America. – J. Biogeogr. 31: 2025–2038. et al.
- 2012. Cross-validation of species distribution models: removing spatial sorting bias and calibration with a null model. – Ecology 93: 679–688. .
- 2013. raster: geographic data analysis and modeling. R package version 2.1-25. – < CRAN.R-project.org/package = raster>. and
- 2005. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. – Int. J. Climatol. 25: 1965–1978. et al.
- 2012. Package ‘dismo’. Species distribution modeling. R package version 0.8-11. – < CRAN.R-project.org/package = dismo>. et al.
- 2001. Assessing habitat-suitability models with a virtual species. – Ecol. Model. 145: 111–121. et al.
- 2007. Limitations of biodiversity databases: case study on seed-plant diversity in Tenerife, Canary Islands. – Conserv. Biol. 21: 853–863. et al.
- 2008. Historical bias in biodiversity inventories affects the observed realized niche of the species. – Oikos 117: 847–858. et al.
- 2004. Predicting invasions of North American basses in Japan using native range data and a genetic algorithm. – Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 133: 845–854. et al.
- 2007. Threshold criteria for conversion of probability of species presence to either- or presence–absence. – Acta Oecol. 31: 361–369. and .
- 2009. Species distribution models do not account for abundance: the case of Arthropods on Terceira Island. – Ann. Zool. Fenn. 46: 451–464. et al.
- 2013. Troubling trends in scientific software use. – Science 340: 814–815. et al.
- 2003. A systematic analysis of factors affecting the performance of climatic envelope models. – Ecol. Appl. 13: 853–867. et al.
- 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. et al.
- 2010. The uncertain nature of absences and their importance in species distribution modelling. – Ecography 33: 103–114. et al.
- 2008. Predicting species distributions from herbarium collections: does climate bias in collection sampling influence model outcomes?– J. Biogeogr. 35: 105–116. et al.
- 2013. Using virtual species to study species distributions and model performance. – J. Biogeogr. 40: 1–8. and .
- 2011. Choice of threshold alters projections of species range shifts under climate change. – Ecol. Model. 222: 3346–3354. and .
- 2010. Applications and limitations of museum data for conservation and ecology, with particular attention to species distribution models. – Prog. Phys. Geogr. 34: 3–22. .
- 2011. Ecological niches and geographic distributions. – Princeton Univ. Press. et al.
- 2006. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. – Ecol. Model. 190: 231–259. et al.
- 2009. Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo-absence data. – Ecol. Appl. 19: 181–197. et al.
- 2012. Predicting the fate of biodiversity using species distribution models: enhancing model comparability and repeatability. – PLoS One 7: e44402. et al.
- 2007. A comparative evaluation of presence-only methods for modelling species distribution. – Divers. Distrib. 13: 397–405. et al.
- 2009. Is current climatic equilibrium a guarantee for the transferability of distribution model predictions? A case study of the spotted hyena. – J. Biogeogr. 36: 1645–1655. et al.
- 2011. Using species distribution models in paleobiogeography: a matter of data, predictors and concepts. – Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 310: 451–463. et al.
- 2005. Fauna habitat modelling and mapping: a review and case study in the Lower Hunter Central Coast region of NSW. – Austral Ecol. 30: 719–738. et al.