ArticleEcology and evolution2026
Comparative Analysis of Correlative Modeling Methods in Predicting North American Bird Abundance.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2026. 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.
- Comparative Analysis of Correlative Modeling Methods in Predicting North American Bird Abundance.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
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
Over the past decade, correlative ecological niche models (ENMs) have been increasingly used to infer species abundance through the estimation of continuous scores, which can be interpreted as environmental suitability. However, little attention has been drawn to the assumptions and conceptual differences between these methods and how they affect abundance predictions. Here, we address this gap by comparing the performance of nine ENM methods, including some recently proposed approaches, in predicting the abundance of North American birds using standardized count data. Relationships between abundance and environmental suitability were generally positive, with average correlation coefficients greater than 0.18. This implies that environmental suitability can partially explain abundance, as it is likely influenced by other factors such as biotic interactions and dispersal constraints. Although no method proved to be significantly superior, newer modeling approaches (e.g., MaxLike and Gaussian models) showed higher average correlations compared to older ones (e.g., Boosted Regression Trees and Random Forest), underscoring the comparable performance across modeling approaches. Results were consistent across taxonomic groups (e.g., Passerellidae), an indication that the observed patterns are robust within specific clades. Furthermore, no significant differences were found between models using complete distribution data versus breeding area data, or annual versus seasonal environmental variables, highlighting that simpler data inputs may be enough for abundance prediction in many contexts. Taken together, these findings reinforce the potential of ENMs to provide reliable insights into species abundance patterns.
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.