A comparative evaluation of presence‐only methods for modelling species distribution

By Asaf Tsoar, Omri Allouche, O. Steinitz, Dotan Rotem, R. Kadmon. 2007

545 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cb5864e0fe3f96677befeeeaec5dd88d0b1ee645

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecological Modeling

In Ecology

Citations in the corpus

Uncertainty associated with survey design in Species Distribution Models (2014, methodology): “In general, complex techniques generate models with better performance within the training data (Elith et al., 2006; Tsoar et al., 2007; but see Lobo, 2008; Hijmans, 2012).”
Invasive species distribution modeling (iSDM): Are absence data and dispersal constraints needed to predict actual distributions? (2009, methodology): “To overcome the obstacle of lacking data on species absence, a ariety of presence-only profile techniques have been introduced nd tested comprehensively for a number of native taxa (Segurado nd Araujo, 2004; Elith et al., 2006; Tsoar et al., 2007).”
Using presence‐only modelling to predict Asian elephant habitat use in a tropical forest landscape: implications for conservation (2010, methodology): “Generally, there is a high degree of accordance between models, although number of studies showed that more complex methods such as Maxent can produce more accurate predictions of species distributions than e.g. ENFA (Elith et al., 2006; Tsoar et al., 2007).”
Equilibrium or not? Modelling potential distribution of invasive species in different stages of invasion (2012, background): “Comparative studies showed that many novel methods are able to fit complex functions to calibration data and provide more accurate predictions of species distributions (Elith et al., 2006; Tsoar et al., 2007).”
Using species distribution models in paleobiogeography: A matter of data, predictors and concepts (2011, background): “The different SDM techniques available to predict species distributions from presence-only data (Tsoar et al., 2007; Calenge and Basille, 2008) are based on the estimation of both the species' tolerance range and the species' optimum conditions according to the selected environmental predictors.”
Ground validation of presence‐only modelling with rare species: a case study on barbastelles Barbastella barbastellus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) (2010, background): “In recent years several presence-only techniques have been developed, and their reliability has been tested for different sample sizes and spatial scales (Elith et al. 2006; Hernandez et al. 2006; Pearson et al. 2007; Tsoar et al. 2007; Wisz et al. 2008).”
Climate change increases risk of plant invasion in the Eastern United States (2009, methodology): “Numerous methods and models have been presented for envelope modeling (see for examples, Elith et al. 2006; Tsoar et al. 2007), selecting predictor variables (Arundel 2005; Bradley 2009b; Hirzel et al.”
Species distribution models in conservation biogeography: developments and challenges (2013, methodology): “(Tsoar et al., 2007) 141 Methods: compared six presence-only SDM methods”
Predicting species distributions in poorly-studied landscapes (2008, background): “Recently several comparative analyses have investigated the efficacy of different methods for modeling species’ distributions (Segurado and Araújo 2004; Elith et al. 2006; Hernandez et al. 2006; Tsoar et al. 2007).”
Predicting potential distribution of the jaguar (Panthera onca) in Mexico: identification of priority areas for conservation (2011, methodology): “The number of currently available methods, which can be used to model species distribution patterns is increasing (Guisan & Thuiller, 2005), and the relative performance has been evaluated more than once (Elith et al., 2006; Tsoar et al., 2007).”
Invasive and flexible: niche shift in the drosophilid Zaprionus indianus (Insecta, Diptera) (2010, methodology): “To visualize whether species’ distribution models fitted from the native range correctly predict the extent of potential invasion in the new ranges, we used three different presenceonly methods (see Tsoar et al. 2007).”