ArticleEcology2019
Resolving misaligned spatial data with integrated species distribution models.
Article in Ecology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Incorporating Data Sets With Multiple Sources of Uncertainty in Integrated Species Distribution Models.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Assessment of suitable cultivation area for Paris polyphylla var. chinensis and var. yunnanensis under anthropogenic disturbance based on ensemble modeling and germplasm identification.BMC plant biology · 2026Article
- Predicting the global risk of chikungunya virus under climate change using ensemble species distribution models.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Integrated distribution modeling resolves asynchrony between bat population impacts and occupancy trends through latent abundance.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Data fusion and integrated species distribution models for three endangered ferns (Frontiers in plant science · 2025Article
- Great Gerbils (Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Potential distribution prediction ofEcology and evolution · 2022Article
- Accounting for detection probability with overestimation by integrating double monitoring programs over 40 years.PloS one · 2022Article
- A practical guide to selecting models for exploration, inference, and prediction in ecology.Ecology · 2021Review
- Quantifying 25 years of disease-caused declines in Tasmanian devil populations: host density drives spatial pathogen spread.Ecology letters · 2021Article
- Trends and gaps in the use of citizen science derived data as input for species distribution models: A quantitative review.PloS one · 2021Review
- A multivariate geostatistical framework for combining multiple indices of abundance for disease vectors and reservoirs: a case study ofJournal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Advances in species distribution modeling continue to be driven by a need to predict species responses to environmental change coupled with increasing data availability. Recent work has focused on development of methods that integrate multiple streams of data to model species distributions. Combining sources of information increases spatial coverage and can improve accuracy in estimates of species distributions. However, when fusing multiple streams of data, the temporal and spatial resolutions of data sources may be mismatched. This occurs when data sources have fluctuating geographic coverage, varying spatial scales and resolutions, and differing sources of bias and sparsity. It is well documented in the spatial statistics literature that ignoring the misalignment of different data sources will result in bias in both the point estimates and uncertainty. This will ultimately lead to inaccurate predictions of species distributions. Here, we examine the issue of misaligned data as it relates specifically to integrated species distribution models. We then provide a general solution that builds off work in the statistical literature for the change-of-support problem. Specifically, we leverage spatial correlation and repeat observations at multiple scales to make statistically valid predictions at the ecologically relevant scale of inference. An added feature of the approach is that addressing differences in spatial resolution between data sets can allow for the evaluation and calibration of lesser-quality sources in many instances. Using both simulations and data examples, we highlight the utility of this modeling approach and the consequences of not reconciling misaligned spatial data. We conclude with a brief discussion of the upcoming challenges and obstacles for species distribution modeling via data fusion.
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.