» Articles » PMID: 24818607

Mapping Species Distributions with MAXENT Using a Geographically Biased Sample of Presence Data: a Performance Assessment of Methods for Correcting Sampling Bias

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2014 May 14
PMID 24818607
Citations 172
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

MAXENT is now a common species distribution modeling (SDM) tool used by conservation practitioners for predicting the distribution of a species from a set of records and environmental predictors. However, datasets of species occurrence used to train the model are often biased in the geographical space because of unequal sampling effort across the study area. This bias may be a source of strong inaccuracy in the resulting model and could lead to incorrect predictions. Although a number of sampling bias correction methods have been proposed, there is no consensual guideline to account for it. We compared here the performance of five methods of bias correction on three datasets of species occurrence: one "virtual" derived from a land cover map, and two actual datasets for a turtle (Chrysemys picta) and a salamander (Plethodon cylindraceus). We subjected these datasets to four types of sampling biases corresponding to potential types of empirical biases. We applied five correction methods to the biased samples and compared the outputs of distribution models to unbiased datasets to assess the overall correction performance of each method. The results revealed that the ability of methods to correct the initial sampling bias varied greatly depending on bias type, bias intensity and species. However, the simple systematic sampling of records consistently ranked among the best performing across the range of conditions tested, whereas other methods performed more poorly in most cases. The strong effect of initial conditions on correction performance highlights the need for further research to develop a step-by-step guideline to account for sampling bias. However, this method seems to be the most efficient in correcting sampling bias and should be advised in most cases.

Citing Articles

Predicting the invasiveness of alpine newts in the UK.

North A, Sutton L, Brown J, Garner T, Billington R, Wilkinson J Biol Invasions. 2025; 27(3):99.

PMID: 40078509 PMC: 11893677. DOI: 10.1007/s10530-025-03543-2.


Pattern of Diversity and Prediction of Suitable Areas of Grasshoppers from the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau in China (Orthoptera: Acridoidea).

Bao B, Wang X, Peng Z, Zhu Q, Li X, Zhang D Insects. 2025; 16(2).

PMID: 40003820 PMC: 11856823. DOI: 10.3390/insects16020191.


Whole-Genome Evaluation of Genetic Rescue: The Case of a Curiously Isolated and Endangered Butterfly.

MacDonald Z, Dupuis J, Glasier J, Sissons R, Moehrenschlager A, Shaffer H Mol Ecol. 2025; 34(4):e17657.

PMID: 39898688 PMC: 11789553. DOI: 10.1111/mec.17657.


Private, non-profit, and plantation: Oil palm smallholders in management-assistance programs vary in socio-demographics, attitudes, and management practices.

Reiss-Woolever V, Wakhid W, Ikhsan M, Caliman J, Naim M, Azmi E PLoS One. 2025; 20(1):e0304837.

PMID: 39823441 PMC: 11741574. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304837.


Assessing changing baleen whale distributions and reported incidents relative to vessel activity in the Northwest Atlantic.

Solway H, Worm B, Wimmer T, Tittensor D PLoS One. 2025; 20(1):e0315909.

PMID: 39813191 PMC: 11734950. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0315909.


References
1.
Adams W, Aveling R, Brockington D, Dickson B, Elliott J, Hutton J . Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science. 2004; 306(5699):1146-9. DOI: 10.1126/science.1097920. View

2.
Gonzalez S, Soto-Centeno J, Reed D . Population distribution models: species distributions are better modeled using biologically relevant data partitions. BMC Ecol. 2011; 11:20. PMC: 3184255. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6785-11-20. View

3.
Boyce , McDonald . Relating populations to habitats using resource selection functions. Trends Ecol Evol. 1999; 14(7):268-272. DOI: 10.1016/s0169-5347(99)01593-1. View

4.
Harris G, Pimm S . Range size and extinction risk in forest birds. Conserv Biol. 2008; 22(1):163-71. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00798.x. View

5.
Warren D, Glor R, Turelli M . Environmental niche equivalency versus conservatism: quantitative approaches to niche evolution. Evolution. 2008; 62(11):2868-83. DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00482.x. View