ArticleScientific reports2026
Accounting for spatial and environmental sampling bias in a species distribution model of Aedes vexans (Diptera: Culicidae).
Article in Scientific reports, 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
This study evaluates the potential of species distribution models to predict habitat suitability for the floodplain mosquito Aedes vexans, with a particular focus on ephemeral breeding habitats such as flood-prone areas. These habitats are essential for oviposition, yet have not been explicitly incorporated as predictors in existing modelling approaches. Flood hazard was included as an environmental predictor to represent the species' dependence on transient water bodies. However, initial model runs showed only a marginal contribution of this predictor to overall model performance. We demonstrate that this weak contribution was not due to the ecological irrelevance of ephemeral habitats, but instead resulted from strong sampling biases in the occurrence data, which were predominantly concentrated in urban environments. To address this issue, we applied spatial thinning and environmental filtering to reduce spatial clustering and the overrepresentation of environmentally similar regions. Using Maxent, we compared candidate models with and without bias correction across multiple environmentally stratified test datasets. Our results show that correcting for sampling bias improved model accuracy more than the inclusion of an additional habitat-relevant predictor alone. The final model produced more reliable suitability predictions, particularly in flood-prone and previously under-sampled areas.
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.