ArticleEcology and evolution2026
Incorporating Data Sets With Multiple Sources of Uncertainty in Integrated Species Distribution Models.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data integration methods aim to improve species distribution estimates by incorporating multiple sources of uncertainty across datasets. Two major sources of uncertainty are: (1) variation in sampling effort across space and within datasets, and (2) variation in reliability associated with data collection protocols or timing among datasets. Our goal was to evaluate how different approaches to address these uncertainties influence predictive performance of integrated models. We modeled distributions of four bird species using three datasets that differed in sampling design. We examined three strategies to reduce uncertainty: (1) filtering data, (2) incorporating functions that account for uncertainty in observation models, and (3) varying how datasets are integrated into a single estimate. We first examine methods to account for variable effort in observations, focusing on both spatial differences in sampling intensity and effort given to a single observation record. We then examine approaches to account for data sets with differing reliability. Sampling effort was best addressed through conservative filtering, including spatial thinning and excluding observations with highly variable effort. Next, we considered how to account for potential false positive detections-due to either misidentification or changes in distributions. We found that treating less reliable data as a covariate, an approach previously suggested for data integration that can greatly speed up model fitting, performed well. Other effective approaches included directly modeling false positive rates and complete exclusion of less reliable data sets. Our results provide insights into best practices in integrated modeling for handling uncertainty in integrated models. We demonstrate the flexible options available when using integrated models to address uncertainty.
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.