ArticlePloS one2026
Predicting dominant terrestrial biomes at a global scale using machine learning algorithms, climate variable indices, and extreme event indices.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding the global distribution of biomes is essential for biodiversity conservation, climate modeling, and land-use planning. Traditional approaches often summarize climate data into indices, and recent models sometimes include extreme events such as severe droughts or rare cold spells. This study evaluates how the choice of machine learning algorithm, climate data summarization, and extreme climate indices affect the accuracy and robustness of global biome modeling. Four algorithms were tested: random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), naive Bayes (NV), and LeNet convolutional neural network (CNN). RF and CNN achieved the highest accuracy, with CNN preferred due to RF's stronger overfitting. Summarizing climate data into indices reduced accuracy by 1-2%, while adding extreme indices increased accuracy by <2% (except for NV, which performed poorly overall). However, extreme climate data caused large mismatches between observed and predicted climate values, reducing robustness as measured by prediction consistency. These results indicate that including extreme climate data in global biome prediction models offers limited accuracy gains but can significantly weaken robustness, so caution is advised.
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.