Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 42 references

Modeling Habitat Shifts: Integrating Convolutional Neural Networks and Tabular Data for Species Migration Prediction

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that satellite imagery plus environmental rasters let two standard machine-learning models predict bird presence with about 85% average accuracy.

desk verdict Conventional bird-presence modeling whose headline accuracy is undercut by its own table and by pseudo-absence labels the authors themselves admit are questionable. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10993 v1 pith:J7SV46CB submitted 2025-07-15 cs.AI

Emir Durakovic , Min-Hong Shih This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords birdspeciesdistributionmodelingconvolutionalneuralnetworksrandomforestpseudo-absencesatelliteimageryclimatedatahabitatshifte
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that bird habitat suitability can be predicted automatically from publicly available data: satellite images fed to a convolutional network and climate/topography rasters fed to a random forest. Using eBird observations for four North American species, it reports that both an image-based model and a tabular model reach roughly 85 percent average accuracy, with the ResNet-based vision model at about 91 percent and the random forest between 73 and 90 percent depending on species. If right, this offers a scalable alternative to field surveys for tracking range shifts under climate change. The paper also finds that the custom CNN trained from scratch underperforms, and that combining both data modalities is the natural next step.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two paired classifiers over the same locations. The image side is a transfer-learned ResNet-34 on Sentinel-2 RGB tiles, whose pretrained features are adapted through a dropout-equipped classification head to output species-presence probabilities; the tabular side is a random forest over elevation, precipitation, temperature, and coordinates, trained on presence points from eBird plus pseudo-absence points generated more than 1.1 km from any observation. The pseudo-absence construction is what turns presence-only citizen science data into a binary classification problem, and both classifiers share the same accuracy and AUC evaluation protocol.

What would settle it

Collect independent absence records for the same four species, for example repeated standardized point counts at locations the model labels absent, and compare the model's predictions against those real absences. If accuracy at locations the model calls absent falls far below the reported 80 to 90 percent, the pseudo-absence labels are not true absences and the reported performance is an artifact of label construction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that standard deep-learning and tree-based classifiers can map bird presence from two complementary representations of a location: Sentinel-2 RGB imagery and WorldClim environmental rasters. On four species sampled from eBird, a transfer-learned ResNet-34 reaches about 91% test accuracy and high AUC scores, while a random forest trained on latitude, longitude, elevation, precipitation, and temperature reaches roughly 80 to 88% test accuracy depending on species. The paper presents these results as evidence that the two approaches capture both macro-level climate factors and micro-level landscape features such as water bodies, forest edges, and urbanization, making the method suitable for forecasting habitat shifts.

Load-bearing premise

The entire accuracy and AUC story rests on treating locations more than 1.1 km from any eBird sighting as true bird absences; if birds can be present near those points or the citizen-science data is biased, the labels do not reflect reality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With openly available satellite and climate data, presence maps for additional bird species could be generated quickly using the same two pipelines.
  • The ResNet result implies that pretrained image features transfer to satellite imagery even with a small ecological dataset, making transfer learning the practical route over training CNNs from scratch.
  • Feature importance shows longitude and proximity to coast dominate tabular predictions, so future migration models should weight geographic and climate drivers alongside visual landscape cues.
  • An integrated model that combines image and tabular inputs is the paper's explicitly proposed next step and would likely outperform either model alone.
  • The evaluation protocol of accuracy, AUC, confusion matrices, and ROC curves is portable to new species without requiring manual field observation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The headline 85% is an average that blends the ResNet's roughly 91% accuracy with tabular accuracies near 80%; species-by-species reporting is more informative than the single average.
  • If eBird occurrence data are geographically biased toward accessible areas, the strong importance of longitude in tabular predictions may partly reflect sampling effort rather than biological migration behavior.
  • A temporal test that trains on earlier years and tests on later years would directly probe whether the models predict range shifts rather than only static habitat suitability.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes two approaches to predict bird species presence: a tabular pipeline using eBird occurrence data and WorldClim environmental rasters with random forest and gradient boosting classifiers, and CNN models (a fine-tuned ResNet-34 and a custom CNN) applied to Sentinel-2 satellite imagery. The datasets are constructed by pairing eBird presence records with pseudo-absence points generated by a 1.1 km buffer around observed locations, and the models are evaluated on a random 70/10/20 split. The paper reports roughly 85% test accuracy for the random forest models and 91% for the ResNet, but only 61% for the custom CNN, and the abstract claims that both systems predict bird distribution with an average accuracy of 85%.

Significance. If the reported results were valid, the paper would offer a useful comparison of deep learning and tree-based methods for bird habitat modeling, and it does provide pseudocode, a code repository, and clear descriptions of the data sources. However, the central claim is compromised by the use of synthetic pseudo-absence labels that are not true absences, a random split that ignores spatial autocorrelation, and inconsistent reporting of accuracy across the two systems. The paper also does not actually model migration or range shifts despite the title, because all inputs are static presence observations and current climate rasters with no temporal dimension. As a result, the reported accuracy and AUC numbers do not support the stated conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Results (Convolutional Neural Network)] The abstract states that 'both systems predict the distribution of birds with an average accuracy of 85%,' but the reported numbers do not support this. Table 1 shows the random forest test accuracy averages about 85% across the four species, while the gradient boosting test accuracy averages about 81%, and Figure 7 reports the custom CNN at 61% accuracy and the ResNet at 91%. A truthful summary would need to distinguish among these models, and 'both systems' cannot be said to achieve 85%.
  2. [Datasets (eBird Dataset); Statistical Models] The pseudo-absence points are generated by selecting locations more than 1.1 km from any eBird observation for a species. This labeling is not a valid absence record: a location 1.2 km away can be identical habitat, and eBird observations are biased toward accessible, well-surveyed areas. Consequently, the classifier can separate known detections from arbitrary distant points by learning sampling bias and spatial autocorrelation rather than habitat suitability. The paper itself acknowledges in the Results section that the pseudo-absent dataset 'might not accurately reflect where birds may be absent.' Because every accuracy and AUC value in Table 1 and the CNN section is computed against these synthetic negatives, the reported performance does not establish predictive skill for real species distributions.
  3. [Statistical Models (first paragraph)] The random 70/10/20 split ignores spatial autocorrelation in the environmental rasters and satellite imagery. Nearby points share covariates and are not independent, so a random split inflates test performance. The paper cites blockCV (reference [24]) as a tool for spatially separated cross-validation but does not use it. Without spatial or environmental blocking, the test accuracy figures in Table 1 and Figure 7 cannot be taken at face value.
  4. [Introduction; Conclusion] The title and framing promise modeling of habitat shifts and migration, but the experiments are static presence/absence classification at current locations. The dataset contains observation dates from eBird, yet the methods do not use time, and the WorldClim rasters represent current climate. There is no future climate scenario, no temporal split, and no prediction of range shifts. This discrepancy between the central claim and the scope of the experiments cannot be repaired by reporting additional metrics within the current design.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Results (Convolutional Neural Network)] 'Ovverall' is a typo for 'overall,' and the same section uses 'wholistically' instead of 'holistically.'
  2. [References] The reference list contains duplicates: [12] and [32] are both Cutler et al. 2007, [14] and [25] are both He et al. 2015/2016, and [15] and [38] are both the SatBird paper; the citation style is also inconsistent between numeric and author-year formats.
  3. [Algorithm 6] Algorithm 6 does not specify the spatial dimensions after each convolutional block, so the feature map sizes that lead to the final 512-dimensional vector are unclear; a reader cannot reproduce the architecture without this detail.
  4. [Results (Tabular Data)] The sentence 'For each species, we sample 250 presence and 250 pseudo-absence statistics respectively' should read '250 presence and 250 pseudo-absence observations.'
  5. [Statistical Models (Tabular Model)] The paper states that a threshold θ (usually 0.5) is applied on the validation set, but no threshold values or sensitivity analysis are reported, making it unclear how the threshold was tuned.
  6. [Results (Convolutional Neural Network)] Figure 7 is described as a comparison of ResNet and CNN across all performance metrics, but no confidence intervals or repeated-run statistics are provided, making it impossible to judge the stability of the 91% versus 61% gap.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation; the mild concern is pseudo-absence label validity, which affects what accuracy measures but is not a reduction of the result to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper does not present a formal derivation chain in which an output quantity is defined in terms of the claimed result. The central empirical claim is that the models predict bird presence with roughly 85% average accuracy, and this figure is obtained by training on labeled data and evaluating on a held-out test split. There is no equation that makes the test accuracy equivalent to a fitted parameter or to the pseudo-absence generation rule by construction. The pseudo-absence labels are created from presence records using a 1.1 km exclusion radius, and every accuracy and AUC value is computed against those synthetic negatives; consequently, the metrics partly measure the label-construction rule rather than true ecological absence. The paper itself states in the Results section: 'our pseudo-absent dataset is being generated and might not accurately reflect where birds may be absent.' This is a genuine external-validity limitation, but it is a data-labeling and benchmark-construction concern, not a circularity in the sense of a derivation assuming its conclusion. The models are not fitted to the test labels, and the arbitrary threshold does not redefine the target metric. No self-citation chain is load-bearing, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. Because the pseudo-absence issue is not a circular step but does weaken what the headline accuracy claims mean, a score of 1 is appropriate rather than 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on unverified assumptions about ground-truth labels: eBird presence records are treated as reliable, invented pseudo-absence points more than 1.1 km away are treated as true absences, a random data split is treated as spatially independent, and RGB-only satellite imagery is assumed to capture the ecologically relevant landscape. None of these assumptions is tested or justified with external data, and all affect the reported accuracy.

free parameters (3)
  • Pseudo-absence distance threshold = 1.1 km
    Introduced ad hoc to define absence labels; no sensitivity analysis or published justification for this exact radius is provided.
  • Per-species sample count = 250 presence, 250 pseudo-absence
    Chosen by hand for each of four species; the small, equal sample may not represent the true prevalence or spatial distribution of birds.
  • Classification threshold theta = 0.5 (validation-tuned)
    Used to convert predicted probabilities into binary presence labels; the value is set on validation data and directly affects reported accuracy.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption eBird presence observations are true positives without observer bias or false positives.
    The paper uses eBird records as ground truth without filtering, and eBird is known to contain sampling bias.
  • ad hoc to paper Pseudo-absence points more than 1.1 km from any presence record are true absences.
    The absence labels are synthetic and the distance rule is arbitrary; if birds occur within 1.1 km of observed points, the labels are wrong.
  • ad hoc to paper A random 70/10/20 split produces independent training and test data despite spatial autocorrelation.
    The paper cites blockCV for spatial folds but does not use it; random splitting of spatially correlated ecological data can leak information and inflate accuracy.
  • domain assumption Sentinel-2 RGB imagery alone captures the landscape features relevant to bird presence.
    The CNN uses only visible bands; the paper's conclusion admits that non-visible bands such as near-infrared could improve detection, meaning the current model may miss ecologically important signals.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling Habitat Shifts: Integrating Convolutional Neural Networks and Tabular Data for Species Migration Prediction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J7SV46CB

@misc{pith2026250710993,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling Habitat Shifts: Integrating Convolutional Neural Networks and Tabular Data for Species Migration Prediction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J7SV46CB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10993}
}
read the original abstract

Due to climate-induced changes, many habitats are experiencing range shifts away from their traditional geographic locations (Piguet, 2011). We propose a solution to accurately model whether bird species are present in a specific habitat through the combination of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) (O'Shea, 2015) and tabular data. Our approach makes use of satellite imagery and environmental features (e.g., temperature, precipitation, elevation) to predict bird presence across various climates. The CNN model captures spatial characteristics of landscapes such as forestation, water bodies, and urbanization, whereas the tabular method uses ecological and geographic data. Both systems predict the distribution of birds with an average accuracy of 85%, offering a scalable but reliable method to understand bird migration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.10993 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Feature importance graph for the Random Forest [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Feature importance graph for the Gradient Boosted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Predicted distribution map for the American Robin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Predicted distribution map for the American Robin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Scikit-learn Random Forest Confusion Matrix. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Random Forest Confusion Matrix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Cnn Confusion Matrix for Pileated WoodPecker [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: ResNet vs CNN model results comparison [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: ResNet Confusion Matrix for Pileated Wood [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: CNN Feature importance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: ResNet Feature Importance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: CNN ROC curve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    J., and Guillera- Arroita, G

    Valavi, R., Elith, J., Lahoz-Monfort, J. J., and Guillera- Arroita, G. 2019. blockCV: An R package for generat- ing spatially or environmentally separated folds for k-fold cross-validation of species distribution models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 10(2): 225-232

    work page 2019

  2. [1]

    Piguet, E., P ´ecoud, A., & de Guchteneire, P. (2011). Migration and Climate Change: An Overview. Refugee Survey Quarterly , 30(3), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/hdr006

    doi:10.1093/rsq/hdr006 2011

  3. [2]

    O’Shea, K., & Nash, R. (2015). An Introduction to Convolutional Neural Networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.08458

    arXiv 2015

  4. [3]

    C., Possingham, H

    McDonald-Madden, E., Runge, M. C., Possingham, H. P., and Martin, T. G. 2011. Optimal timing for managed relocation of species faced with climate change. Nature Climate Change 1: 261–265

    work page 2011

  5. [4]

    Lemoine, N., and B ¨ohning-Gaese, K. 2003. Potential Impact of Global Climate Change on Species Richness of Long-Distance Migrants. Conservation Biology 17(2): 577–586

    work page 2003

  6. [5]

    J., and Olden, J

    Rahel, F. J., and Olden, J. D. 2008. Assessing the Effects of Climate Change on Aquatic Invasive Species. Conser- vation Biology 22(3): 521–533

    work page 2008

  7. [6]

    D., Ng, D

    Bickford, D., Howard, S. D., Ng, D. J. J., and Sheridan, J. A. 2010. Impacts of climate change on the amphibians and reptiles of Southeast Asia. Biodiversity and Conser- vation 19: 1043–1062

    work page 2010

  8. [7]

    Morrison, M. L. 1986. Bird Populations as Indicators of Environmental Change. In Johnston, R. F., ed., Current Ornithology, volume 3. Springer, Boston, MA

    work page 1986

Show all 42 references
  1. [8]

    L., Phillips, T., Dayer, A

    Sullivan, B. L., Phillips, T., Dayer, A. A., Wood, C. L., Farnsworth, A., Iliff, M. J., Davies, I. J., Wiggins, A., Fink, D., Hochachka, W. M., Rodewald, A. D., Rosen- berg, K. V ., Bonney, R., and Kelling, S. 2017. Using open access observational data for conservation action:...

    2017

  2. [9]

    G., and Dawson, T

    Pearson, R. G., and Dawson, T. P. 2003. Predicting the impacts of climate change on the distribution of species: are bioclimate envelope models useful? Global Ecology and Biogeography 12(5): 361–371

    2003

  3. [10]

    Guisan, A., Lehmann, A., Ferrier, S., Austin, M., Over- ton, J. M. C., Aspinall, R., and Hastie, T. 2006. Mak- ing better biogeographical predictions of species’ distri- butions. Journal of Applied Ecology 43(3): 386–392

    2006

  4. [11]

    Ferrier, S., Powell, G. V . N., Richardson, K. S., Man- ion, G., Overton, J. M., Allnutt, T. F., Cameron, S. E., Mantle, K., Burgess, N. D., Faith, D. P., Lamoreux, J. F., Kier, G., Hijmans, R. J., Funk, V . A., Cassis, G. A., Fisher, B. L., Flemons, P., Lees, D., Lovett, J. C...

    2004

  5. [12]

    Breiman, L. (2001). Random Forests. Machine Learning, 45(1), 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A: 1010933404324

    2001 doi

  6. [13]

    S., Mahajan, D., Dhillon, I

    Si, S., Zhang, H., Keerthi, S. S., Mahajan, D., Dhillon, I. S., & Hsieh, C.-J. (2017). Gradient Boosted Decision Trees for High Dimensional Sparse Output. In Proceed- ings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 3182–3190). PMLR. https://proceedings. mlr....

    2017

  7. [14]

    He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., & Sun, J. (2016). Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.07146

    2016 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Teng, M., Elmustafa, A., Akera, B., Bengio, B., Radi, H., Larochelle, H., & Rolnick, D. (2023). SatBird: A Dataset for Bird Species Distribution Modeling using Re- mote Sensing and Citizen Science Data. In Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), Datasets...

    2023

  9. [16]

    Fukuda, S., De Baets, B., Onikura, N., Nakajima, J., Mukai, T., & Mouton, A. M. (2013). Modelling the dis- tribution of the pan-continental invasive fish Pseudoras- bora parva based on landscape features in the north- ern Kyushu Island, Japan. Aquatic Conservation: Ma- rine an...

    2013 doi

  10. [17]

    L., Wood, C

    Sullivan, B. L., Wood, C. L., Iliff, M. J., Bonney, R. E., Fink, D., & Kelling, S. (2009). eBird: a citizen-based bird observation network in the biological sciences. Bio- logical Conservation, 142(10), 2282–2292

    2009

  11. [18]

    E., & Hijmans, R

    Fick, S. E., & Hijmans, R. J. (2017). WorldClim 2: new 1km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology, 37(12), 4302–4315

    2017

  12. [19]

    European Space Agency. (2023). Sentinel-2 User Guide. Retrieved from https://sentinel.esa.int/web/ sentinel/user-guides/sentinel-2-msi

    2023

  13. [20]

    H., and Thuiller, W

    Barbet-Massin, M., Jiguet, F., Albert, C. H., and Thuiller, W. 2012. Selecting pseudo-absences for species distribution models: how, where and how many?Methods in Ecology and Evolution 3(2): 327-338

    2012

  14. [21]

    M., Iverson, L

    Prasad, A. M., Iverson, L. R., and Liaw, A. 2006. Newer classification and regression tree techniques: Bagging and random forests for ecological prediction. Ecosystems 9(2): 181-199

    2006

  15. [22]

    Mi, C., Huettmann, F., Guo, Y ., Han, X., and Wen, L

  16. [23]

    R., Edwards, T

    Cutler, D. R., Edwards, T. C., Beard, K. H., Cutler, A., Hess, K. T., Gibson, J., and Lawler, J. J. 2007. Ran- dom forests for classification in ecology.Ecology 88(11): 2783-2792

    2007

  17. [25]

    He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., and Sun, J. 2015. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 770-778

    2015

  18. [26]

    Christin, S., Hervet, ´E., and Lecomte, N. 2019. Appli- cations for deep learning in ecology. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 10(10): 1632-1644

    2019

  19. [27]

    Buda, M., Maki, A., and Mazurowski, M. A. 2018. A systematic study of the class imbalance problem in con- volutional neural networks. Neural Networks 106: 249- 259

    2018

  20. [28]

    P., and Ba, J

    Kingma, D. P., and Ba, J. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In Proceedings of the 3rd Inter- national Conference on Learning Representations

    2014

  21. [29]

    Kattenborn, T., Eichel, J., and Fassnacht, F. E. 2019. Convolutional Neural Networks enable efficient, accurate and fine-grained segmentation of plant species and com- munities from high-resolution UA V imagery. Scientific Reports 9(1): 17656

    2019

  22. [30]

    He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., and Sun, J. 2015. Delv- ing Deep into Rectifiers: Surpassing Human-Level Per- formance on ImageNet classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision , 1026-1034

    2015

  23. [31]

    T., Ara ´ujo, M

    Pecl, G. T., Ara ´ujo, M. B., Bell, J. D., Blanchard, J., Bonebrake, T. C., Chen, I. C., et al. 2017. Biodi- versity redistribution under climate change: Impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science 355(6332): eaai9214

    2017

  24. [32]

    Ecology 88:2783–2792

    Cutler DR, Edwards TC, Beard KH, et al (2007) Random forests for classification in ecology. Ecology 88:2783–2792. doi: 10.1890/07-0539.1

    2007 doi

  25. [33]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Con- ference on Artificial Intelligence 35:6679–6687

    Arik S, Pfister T (2021) TabNet: Attentive inter- pretable tabular learning. Proceedings of the AAAI Con- ference on Artificial Intelligence 35:6679–6687. doi: 10.1609/aaai.v35i8.16826

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    Scientific Reports

    Kattenborn T, Eichel J, Fassnacht FE (2019) Convolu- tional neural networks enable efficient, accurate and fine- grained segmentation of plant species and communities from high-resolution UA V imagery. Scientific Reports. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-53797-9

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

    Aodha OM, Cole E, Perona P (2019) Presence-only geographical priors for fine-grained image classification. 2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). doi: 10.1109/iccv.2019.00969

    2019

  28. [36]

    Kim, J.-Y .; Yoon, J.; Choi, Y .-S.; and Eo, S. H. 2022. The influencing factors for distribution patterns of resi- dent and migrant bird species richness along elevational gradients. PeerJ 10: e13258

    2022

  29. [37]

    A.; Troupin, D.; et al

    Schekler, I.; Smolinsky, J. A.; Troupin, D.; et al. 2022. Bird migration at the edge – geographic and anthro- pogenic factors but not habitat properties drive season- specific spatial stopover distributions near wide ecolog- ical barriers. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 10: 822220

    2022

  30. [38]

    Teng, M.; Elmustafa, A.; Akera, B.; et al. 2023. Satbird: Bird species distribution modeling with re- mote sensing and citizen science data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.00936

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    I.; Brandt, L

    Watling, J. I.; Brandt, L. A.; Mazzotti, F. J.; and Roma˜nach, S. S. 2013. Use and interpretation of climate envelope models: A practical guide. USGS Open File Re- port 2013-1057

    2013

  32. [40]

    Weerasooriya, P. 2019. Implementing CART algorithm from scratch in Python. Medium

    2019

  33. [41]

    Withgott, J. 2000. Taking a bird’s-eye view. . . in the UV: Recent studies reveal a surprising new picture of how birds see the world. BioScience 50(10): 854–859. Appendix Figure 1: Feature importance graph for the Random Forest model. Figure 2: Feature importance graph for th...

    2000

  34. [2017]

    PeerJ 5: e2849

    Why choose Random Forest to predict rare species distribution with few samples in large undersampled ar- eas? Three Asian crane species models provide support- ing evidence. PeerJ 5: e2849

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.