IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v507y2025ics0304380025001620.html

Improving species distribution models by optimising background points: Impacts on current and future climate projections

Author

Listed:
  • Rausell-Moreno, Armand
  • Galiana, Núria
  • Naimi, Babak
  • Araújo, Miguel B.

Abstract

Species Distribution Models (SDM) are often fit using presence-background data due to the lack of reliable absence records. To calibrate these models, background records are required, yet the optimal number of records and if they should be proportional to study area or the number of occurrences remains uncertain. This study addresses three key questions: (i) how does varying background proportions affect predictive accuracy? (ii) How do background proportions influence future species distribution projections under climate change? and (iii) should the number of background records be determined based on study region size or presence record availability? To investigate these questions, we simulated 280 virtual species distributions worldwide under present and future climate conditions. Model outputs were evaluated against simulated “true” distributions under both present and future scenarios. Results indicate that sampling background records proportional to either presence points or study area yields comparable average performance. Optimal performance occurred with a 0.5–1 ratio of background records to presence points when sampled proportionally to presences, and with approximately 5 % of the study area sampled when proportional to region size. Species prevalence also modulated the optimal presence-background ratio. Increasing the number of background records across suitable and unsuitable areas had contrasting effects for both strategies tested, emphasizing the need to assess model performance separately for both. Notably, background proportions influenced baseline predictions but had minimal impact on future projections, where niche-related variables dominated model performance. These findings offer practical insights for SDM practitioners. Adjusting background sampling strategies enhances current prediction accuracy, while future projections remain robust across different sampling approaches, ensuring more reliable modelling outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Rausell-Moreno, Armand & Galiana, Núria & Naimi, Babak & Araújo, Miguel B., 2025. "Improving species distribution models by optimising background points: Impacts on current and future climate projections," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 507(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:507:y:2025:i:c:s0304380025001620
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2025.111177
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380025001620
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2025.111177?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Barker, Justin R. & MacIsaac, Hugh J., 2022. "Species distribution models: Administrative boundary centroid occurrences require careful interpretation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 472(C).
    2. Fernandez, Marc & Sillero, Neftali & Yesson, Chris, 2022. "To be or not to be: the role of absences in niche modelling for highly mobile species in dynamic marine environments," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 471(C).
    3. Whitford, Anna M. & Shipley, Benjamin R. & McGuire, Jenny L., 2024. "The influence of the number and distribution of background points in presence-background species distribution models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 488(C).
    4. Broussin, Joséphine & Mouchet, Maud & Goberville, Eric, 2024. "Generating pseudo-absences in the ecological space improves the biological relevance of response curves in species distribution models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 498(C).
    5. Steen, Bart & Broennimann, Olivier & Maiorano, Luigi & Guisan, Antoine, 2024. "How sensitive are species distribution models to different background point selection strategies? A test with species at various equilibrium levels," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 493(C).
    6. Schartel, Tyler E. & Cao, Yong, 2024. "Background selection complexity influences Maxent predictive performance in freshwater systems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 488(C).
    7. Brice B Hanberry & Hong S He & Brian J Palik, 2012. "Pseudoabsence Generation Strategies for Species Distribution Models," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(8), pages 1-12, August.
    8. Chefaoui, Rosa M. & Lobo, Jorge M., 2008. "Assessing the effects of pseudo-absences on predictive distribution model performance," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 210(4), pages 478-486.
    9. VanDerWal, Jeremy & Shoo, Luke P. & Graham, Catherine & Williams, Stephen E., 2009. "Selecting pseudo-absence data for presence-only distribution modeling: How far should you stray from what you know?," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(4), pages 589-594.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Broussin, Joséphine & Mouchet, Maud & Goberville, Eric, 2024. "Generating pseudo-absences in the ecological space improves the biological relevance of response curves in species distribution models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 498(C).
    2. Steen, Bart & Broennimann, Olivier & Maiorano, Luigi & Guisan, Antoine, 2024. "How sensitive are species distribution models to different background point selection strategies? A test with species at various equilibrium levels," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 493(C).
    3. Amaro, George & Fidelis, Elisangela Gomes & da Silva, Ricardo Siqueira & Marchioro, Cesar Augusto, 2023. "Effect of study area extent on the potential distribution of Species: A case study with models for Raoiella indica Hirst (Acari: Tenuipalpidae)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 483(C).
    4. Schartel, Tyler E. & Cao, Yong, 2024. "Background selection complexity influences Maxent predictive performance in freshwater systems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 488(C).
    5. Coro, Gianpaolo & Pagano, Pasquale & Ellenbroek, Anton, 2013. "Combining simulated expert knowledge with Neural Networks to produce Ecological Niche Models for Latimeria chalumnae," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 268(C), pages 55-63.
    6. Sillero, Neftalí & Arenas-Castro, Salvador & Enriquez‐Urzelai, Urtzi & Vale, Cândida Gomes & Sousa-Guedes, Diana & Martínez-Freiría, Fernando & Real, Raimundo & Barbosa, A.Márcia, 2021. "Want to model a species niche? A step-by-step guideline on correlative ecological niche modelling," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 456(C).
    7. Stokland, Jogeir N. & Halvorsen, Rune & Støa, Bente, 2011. "Species distribution modelling—Effect of design and sample size of pseudo-absence observations," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(11), pages 1800-1809.
    8. Brice B Hanberry & Hong S He & Brian J Palik, 2012. "Pseudoabsence Generation Strategies for Species Distribution Models," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(8), pages 1-12, August.
    9. Senait D Senay & Susan P Worner & Takayoshi Ikeda, 2013. "Novel Three-Step Pseudo-Absence Selection Technique for Improved Species Distribution Modelling," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-16, August.
    10. Whitford, Anna M. & Shipley, Benjamin R. & McGuire, Jenny L., 2024. "The influence of the number and distribution of background points in presence-background species distribution models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 488(C).
    11. Hengl, Tomislav & Sierdsema, Henk & Radović, Andreja & Dilo, Arta, 2009. "Spatial prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence-only records: combining point pattern analysis, ENFA and regression-kriging," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(24), pages 3499-3511.
    12. Alsamadisi, Adam G. & Tran, Liem T. & Papeş, Monica, 2020. "Employing inferences across scales: Integrating spatial data with different resolutions to enhance Maxent models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 415(C).
    13. Václavík, Tomáš & Meentemeyer, Ross K., 2009. "Invasive species distribution modeling (iSDM): Are absence data and dispersal constraints needed to predict actual distributions?," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(23), pages 3248-3258.
    14. repec:plo:pone00:0184193 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Iturbide, Maialen & Bedia, Joaquín & Herrera, Sixto & del Hierro, Oscar & Pinto, Miriam & Gutiérrez, Jose Manuel, 2015. "A framework for species distribution modelling with improved pseudo-absence generation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 312(C), pages 166-174.
    16. Liang, Wanwan & Papeş, Monica & Tran, Liem & Grant, Jerome & Washington-Allen, Robert & Stewart, Scott & Wiggins, Gregory, 2018. "The effect of pseudo-absence selection method on transferability of species distribution models in the context of non-adaptive niche shift," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 388(C), pages 1-9.
    17. Doko, Tomoko & Fukui, Hiromichi & Kooiman, Andre & Toxopeus, A.G. & Ichinose, Tomohiro & Chen, Wenbo & Skidmore, A.K., 2011. "Identifying habitat patches and potential ecological corridors for remnant Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus japonicus) populations in Japan," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(3), pages 748-761.
    18. Jiang, Dong & Wang, Qian & Ding, Fangyu & Fu, Jingying & Hao, Mengmeng, 2019. "Potential marginal land resources of cassava worldwide: A data-driven analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 167-173.
    19. Mouton, Ans M. & De Baets, Bernard & Goethals, Peter L.M., 2010. "Ecological relevance of performance criteria for species distribution models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(16), pages 1995-2002.
    20. Christian König & Patrick Weigelt & Julian Schrader & Amanda Taylor & Jens Kattge & Holger Kreft, 2019. "Biodiversity data integration—the significance of data resolution and domain," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(3), pages 1-16, March.
    21. van Steenderen, Clarke J.M. & Sutton, Guy F., 2024. "Climate covariate selection influences MaxEnt model predictions and predictive accuracy under current and future climates," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 498(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:507:y:2025:i:c:s0304380025001620. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.