ArticlePloS one2021
Bioacoustics for in situ validation of species distribution modelling: An example with bats in Brazil.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A network of bat caves in Brazilian drylands support population connectivity in Pteronotus bats (Chiroptera: Mormoopidae).BMC ecology and evolution · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Species distribution modelling (SDM) gained importance on biodiversity distribution and conservation studies worldwide, including prioritizing areas for public policies and international treaties. Useful for large-scale approaches and species distribution estimates, it is a plus considering that a minor fraction of the planet is adequately sampled. However, minimizing errors is challenging, but essential, considering the uses and consequences of such models. In situ validation of the SDM outputs should be a key-step-in some cases, urgent. Bioacoustics can be used to validate and refine those outputs, especially if the focal species' vocalizations are conspicuous and species-specific. This is the case of echolocating bats. Here, we used extensive acoustic monitoring (>120 validation points over an area of >758,000 km2, and producing >300,000 sound files) to validate MaxEnt outputs for six neotropical bat species in a poorly-sampled region of Brazil. Based on in situ validation, we evaluated four threshold-dependent theoretical evaluation metrics' ability in predicting models' performance. We also assessed the performance of three widely used thresholds to convert continuous SDMs into presence/absence maps. We demonstrated that MaxEnt produces very different outputs, requiring a careful choice on thresholds and modeling parameters. Although all theoretical evaluation metrics studied were positively correlated with accuracy, we empirically demonstrated that metrics based on specificity-sensitivity and sensitivity-precision are better for testing models, considering that most SDMs are based on unbalanced data. Without independent field validation, we found that using an arbitrary threshold for modelling can be a precarious approach with many possible outcomes, even after getting good evaluation scores. Bioacoustics proved to be important for validating SDMs for the six bat species analyzed, allowing a better refinement of SDMs in large and under-sampled regions, with relatively low sampling effort. Regardless of the species assessing method used, our research highlighted the vital necessity of in situ validation for SDMs.
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.