2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109487
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessing the effect of sample bias correction in species distribution models

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
19
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 72 publications
(109 reference statements)
0
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The number and types of environmental variables, sampling effort, sampling bias, and amount and extent of species occurrence data affect prediction probabilities [ 11 ], and MaxEnt relatively can handle these issues more adequately than the other modelling tools. Species distribution models (SDMs) can predict high occurrence probability for individual species at some geographic space/places [ 7 , 13 ], which depict an existence of more optimal environmental conditions, and can be called as a suitable habitat [ 14 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The number and types of environmental variables, sampling effort, sampling bias, and amount and extent of species occurrence data affect prediction probabilities [ 11 ], and MaxEnt relatively can handle these issues more adequately than the other modelling tools. Species distribution models (SDMs) can predict high occurrence probability for individual species at some geographic space/places [ 7 , 13 ], which depict an existence of more optimal environmental conditions, and can be called as a suitable habitat [ 14 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, species records are often constrained by the variety of their sources and spatial biases caused by unequal sampling efforts 103 and by uneven field accessibility 104 . The adequacy of sample bias correction methods remains uncertain 105 and field validation is still considered to be the best standard practice to assess models’ reliability 106 . Unfortunately, field validation is sometimes impossible to use, especially in geographically extensive scale studies 105 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The adequacy of sample bias correction methods remains uncertain 105 and field validation is still considered to be the best standard practice to assess models’ reliability 106 . Unfortunately, field validation is sometimes impossible to use, especially in geographically extensive scale studies 105 . In this study some geographical regions also seemed to be inadequately sampled and for that reason the spatial filtering on various scales of topographic heterogeneity was conducted to reduce sampling bias.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The data for performance evaluation was partitioned spatially, using 5‐folds for block‐cross validation (generated with the blockCV R package, (Valavi et al, 2019; Figure S1). The effect of sample bias correction (non‐random pseudo‐absence generation) was quantified using the relative overlap index (Dubos et al, 2021). This index informs how sample bias corrections affect spatial predictions (mean Schoener's D between uncorrected and corrected individual models) relative to inter‐model variability (mean overlap between all pairwise combinations of model replicates).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%