ArticleEcology and evolution2018
Wrong, but useful: regional species distribution models may not be improved by range-wide data under biased sampling.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Trends in mosquito species distribution modeling: insights for vector surveillance and disease control.Parasites & vectors · 2023Pooled it
- Ground-Truthing of MaxEnt Models Reveals Poor Predictive Accuracy for Lizards in the Mackenzie Basin, New Zealand.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Climate-induced distribution dynamics and niche adaptation of South Korean endemic plants across the Korean Peninsula.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Distribution and protection of Thesium chinense Turcz. under climate and land use change.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Modeling the Wintering Habitat Distribution of the Black Stork in Shaanxi, China: A Hierarchical Integration of Climate and Land Use/Land Cover Data.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- MaxEnt brings comparable results when the input data are being completed; Model parameterization of four species distribution models.Ecology and evolution · 2023Article
- Pushed Northward by Climate Change: Range Shifts With a Chance of Co-occurrence Reshuffling in the Forecast for Northern European Odonates.Environmental entomology · 2022Article
- Need for split: integrative taxonomy reveals unnoticed diversity in the subaquatic species ofPeerJ · 2022Article
- Habitat potential modelling and mapping of Teucrium polium using machine learning techniques.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2021Article
- Validating Species Distribution Models With Standardized Surveys for Ixodid Ticks in Mainland Florida.Journal of medical entomology · 2021Article
- Tolerance niche expansion and potential distribution prediction during Asian openbill bird range expansion.Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
- Expanding or shrinking? range shifts in wild ungulates under climate change in Pamir-Karakoram mountains, Pakistan.PloS one · 2021Article
- Assessing the current and potential future distribution of four invasive forest plants in Minnesota, U.S.A., using mixed sources of data.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Spatial conservation prioritisation in data-poor countries: a quantitative sensitivity analysis using multiple taxa.BMC ecology · 2020Article
- Risk of biodiversity collapse under climate change in the Afro-Arabian region.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Wrong, but useful: regional species distribution models may not be improved by range-wide data under biased sampling.Ecology and evolution · 2018Article
- Data-centric species distribution modeling: Impacts of modeler decisions in a case study of invasive European frog-bit.Applications in plant sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Species distribution modeling (SDM) is an essential method in ecology and conservation. SDMs are often calibrated within one country's borders, typically along a limited environmental gradient with biased and incomplete data, making the quality of these models questionable. In this study, we evaluated how adequate are national presence-only data for calibrating regional SDMs. We trained SDMs for Egyptian bat species at two different scales: only within Egypt and at a species-specific global extent. We used two modeling algorithms: Maxent and elastic net, both under the point-process modeling framework. For each modeling algorithm, we measured the congruence of the predictions of global and regional models for Egypt, assuming that the lower the congruence, the lower the appropriateness of the Egyptian dataset to describe the species' niche. We inspected the effect of incorporating predictions from global models as additional predictor ("prior") to regional models, and quantified the improvement in terms of AUC and the congruence between regional models run with and without priors. Moreover, we analyzed predictive performance improvements after correction for sampling bias at both scales. On average, predictions from global and regional models in Egypt only weakly concur. Collectively, the use of priors did not lead to much improvement: similar AUC and high congruence between regional models calibrated with and without priors. Correction for sampling bias led to higher model performance, whatever prior used, making the use of priors less pronounced. Under biased and incomplete sampling, the use of global bats data did not improve regional model performance. Without enough bias-free regional data, we cannot objectively identify the actual improvement of regional models after incorporating information from the global niche. However, we still believe in great potential for global model predictions to guide future surveys and improve regional sampling in data-poor regions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.