ArticleEcology and evolution2021
Transferability of correlative and process-based species distribution models revisited: A response to Booth.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reassessment of the risks of climate change for terrestrial ecosystems.Nature ecology & evolution · 2024Article
- Transferability of correlative and process-based species distribution models revisited: A response to Booth.Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
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
Here, we respond to Booth's criticism of our paper, "Predictive ability of a process-based versus a correlative species distribution model." Booth argues that our usage of the MaxEnt model was flawed and that the conclusions of our paper are by implication flawed. We respond by clarifying that the error Booth implies we made was not made in our analysis, and we repeat statements from the original manuscript which anticipated such criticisms. In addition, we illustrate that using BIOCLIM variables in a MaxEnt analysis as recommended by Booth does not change the conclusions of the original analysis. That is, high performance in the training data domain did not equate to reliable predictions in novel data domains, and the process model transferred into novel data domains better than the correlative model did. We conclude by discussing a hidden implication of our study, namely, that process-based SDMs negate the need for BIOCLIM-type variables and therefore reframe the variable selection problem in species distribution modeling.
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.