ArticlePeerJ2024
A retrospective approach for evaluating ecological niche modeling transferability over time: the case of Mexican endemic rodents.
Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Ecological niche modeling (ENM) is a valuable tool for inferring suitable environmental conditions and estimating species' geographic distributions. ENM is widely used to assess the potential effects of climate change on species distributions; however, the choice of modeling algorithm introduces substantial uncertainty, especially since future projections cannot be properly validated. In this study, we evaluated the performance of seven popular modeling algorithms-Bioclim, generalized additive models (GAM), generalized linear models (GLM), boosted regression trees (BRT), Maxent, random forest (RF), and support vector machine (SVM)-in transferring ENM across time, using Mexican endemic rodents as a model system. We used a retrospective approach, transferring models from the near past (1950-1979) to more recent conditions (1980-2009) and vice versa, to evaluate their performance in both forecasting and hindcasting. Consistent with previous studies, our results highlight that input data quality and algorithm choice significantly impact model accuracy, but most importantly, we found that algorithm performance varied between forecasting and hindcasting. While no single algorithm outperformed the others in both temporal directions, RF generally showed better performance for forecasting, while Maxent performed better in hindcasting, though it was more sensitive to small sample sizes. Bioclim consistently showed the lowest performance. These findings underscore that not all species or algorithms are suited for temporal projections. Therefore, we strongly recommend conducting a thorough evaluation of the data quality-in terms of quantity and potential biases-of the species of interest. Based on this assessment, appropriate algorithm(s) should be carefully selected and rigorously tested before proceeding with temporal transfers.
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.