Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 84 references

CISO: Species Distribution Modeling Conditioned on Incomplete Species Observations

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Conditioning a species distribution model on partial observations of other species improves its predictions, as shown across plant, bird, and butterfly datasets.

desk verdict CISO is a plausible and useful method for incorporating incomplete biotic observations into SDMs, but the empirical claims are unverifiable from what we can read. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.06704 v1 pith:KUZ23QEH submitted 2025-08-08 cs.LG

Hager Radi Abdelwahed , Mélisande Teng , Robin Zbinden , Laura Pollock , Hugo Larochelle , Devis Tuia , David Rolnick This is my paper
classification cs.LG
keywords speciesdistributionmodelingbioticinteractionsdeeplearningincompleteobservationspresence-absencedataconservationplanningcross-taxapredictionspatialecology
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 introduces CISO, a deep-learning species distribution model that, in addition to environmental variables, takes as input whatever presence/absence observations are available for a subset of other species at the same locations. The central claim is that this incomplete biotic information improves predictions of where the remaining species occur, compared with models that rely only on abiotic conditions. The authors test this across plant, bird, and butterfly datasets and report consistently better performance on spatially separated test sets, as well as further gains when observations from multiple datasets are combined. If the claim holds, SDMs can make productive use of the patchy, opportunistic species observations that field surveys and citizen science typically produce.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the conditioning mechanism: a deep-learning model that accepts an arbitrary number and combination of species observations, alongside environmental covariates, and produces a prediction for the target species. The flexibility to handle incomplete sets is what distinguishes CISO from pairwise co-occurrence methods, which require aligned species-by-site matrices. The mechanism allows the model to encode whatever partial observations exist at a location, including observations from different taxa, and use them to modulate the environmental signal.

What would settle it

A direct test is to train CISO on a region and then evaluate on a spatially separated test set where the conditioning species are entirely removed, leaving only environmental variables; if the improvement over an environment-only baseline disappears when no other-species observations are supplied, the claimed benefit of partial biotic information is not established.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

CISO's core discovery is that a model conditioned on a flexible, incomplete set of species observations can outperform both environment-only SDMs and methods that require complete pairwise co-occurrence data. The paper demonstrates this by conditioning predictions for a target species on observations of a subset of other species, showing that the remaining species are predicted more accurately. It also shows that observations from different taxonomic datasets can be combined to improve performance, indicating that the model captures cross-taxon associations rather than just within-dataset correlations. The authors position CISO as a practical tool that relaxes the symmetry and completeness a

Load-bearing premise

The method's practical advantage depends on having, at the time of prediction, presence/absence records for at least some other species at the same locations where one wants to predict; without such observations the model has no biotic input and reduces to an environment-only SDM.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SDMs can be applied to data where only a few species are recorded (e.g., citizen-science checklists) without discarding incomplete records, widening the usable data pool for ecological modeling.
  • Conservation planners can use observations of common or easily detected species to improve predictions for rare or elusive species at the same sites, which is directly relevant to monitoring programs.
  • The method provides a way to combine monitoring data from different taxonomic groups, potentially improving predictions across ecosystem boundaries where single-taxon data are sparse.
  • If the model's learned associations are interpretable, it can generate hypotheses about which species interactions matter most for distribution, guiding targeted ecological field studies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension not tested in the paper: when predicting in a new region or future climate, the conditioning species may be absent or compositionally different; the reported gains could degrade unless the model is trained to handle shifted species sets. This could be tested by training on one region and conditioning on observations from a novel region.
  • The implicit claim that partial observations carry information about the target species suggests a sampling-design implication: the marginal value of an additional species observation could be quantified, allowing survey effort to be allocated to the species that most reduce prediction uncertainty.
  • If the model truly captures cross-taxa interactions, it might be used as a data-driven screen for potential biotic interactions, generating candidate species pairs for field or experimental validation, though the paper does not directly validate the ecological causality of these associations.
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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CISO, a deep learning method for species distribution modeling (SDM) that conditions predictions on environmental variables plus a flexible and incomplete set of presence/absence observations of other species. The abstract claims that including this partial biotic information improves predictive performance on spatially separate test sets, that conditioning on a subset of species within the same dataset outperforms alternative methods, and that combining observations from multiple datasets is beneficial. The method is demonstrated on three datasets: sPlotOpen (plants), SatBird (birds), and a new SatButterfly (butterflies) dataset. Only the abstract and title are legible in the supplied manuscript; the full text is a corrupted character encoding, so no methodological or experimental details are accessible.

Significance. If the claims are verified, CISO would address a recognized gap in SDMs by incorporating incomplete biotic interaction data in a flexible deep learning framework, potentially improving predictive accuracy for conservation applications. The cross-dataset combination claim is also novel. However, the significance hinges entirely on empirical validation that is currently unreviewable because the main text is unreadable. The core contribution is a new architecture and training/evaluation protocol whose details and evidence are absent from this submission.

major comments (3)
  1. [Full Text (all sections)] The supplied full text is a corrupted encoding; only the title and abstract are readable. No methods, model architecture, training details, experimental setup, baseline descriptions, results tables, or figures are available. This is a load-bearing deficiency: none of the abstract's central claims can be verified without the complete manuscript. The authors must provide a readable, complete version before any technical assessment can proceed.
  2. [Abstract] The central claim—including partial biotic information improves predictive performance on spatially separate test sets—is stated without any supporting details: baselines are not named, the evaluation protocol is unspecified, no error bars or statistical significance are reported, and the construction of the 'subset of species' used for conditioning is not described. The claim that 'CISO outperforms alternative methods' is therefore unsupported even at the level of the abstract.
  3. [Abstract / Method (unavailable)] A potential correctness risk is that conditioning on species observations at test locations may indirectly leak information about the target species or serve as environmental proxies. The abstract does not clarify whether the conditioning observations are available at the same test sites, how they are selected, or whether the spatially separate test set still allows such observations. A precise statement of the prediction-time assumptions is essential to assess whether the reported improvements are due to genuine biotic signal or to test-region information.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states 'CISO enables predictions to be conditioned on a flexible number of species observations alongside environmental variables' but does not specify how the number and identity of conditioning species are chosen at test time. Clarifying this would help readers understand the practical scenario.
  2. [Full Text (data availability)] The data and code availability statement appears in the corrupted text only as placeholder URLs. Please ensure the final manuscript contains working anonymous links.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity identified from available text; central claims are empirical and no derivation reduces to inputs.

full rationale

The supplied material consists of the abstract plus a corrupted/unreadable full text, so no equations, experimental protocol, or parameter-fitting details can be inspected. The paper's claims are empirical: conditioning on incomplete species observations improves predictive performance on spatially separate test sets. Nothing in the abstract defines a target quantity in terms of a fitting procedure, nor does any visible step rename a fitted parameter as a prediction. The abstract explicitly states test sets are spatially separate, which mitigates label-leakage concerns, and no self-citation is invoked as load-bearing evidence. Without access to the methods and results sections, there is no quotable reduction of a prediction to its inputs, and per the review rules circularity cannot be inferred from absence of detail. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity (score 0).

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No hand-fitted constants are visible from the abstract; the model's learned weights are internal parameters, not ad hoc constants. The central claim rests on domain assumptions about the availability of conditioning observations and the validity of spatial splits and dataset representativeness, which are typical for empirical ML papers but unverified here.

free parameters (1)
  • Neural network weights and biases (CISO) = learned during training
    All predictive capacity comes from learned parameters; no values are given in the abstract, and the central claim depends on the training procedure, not on hand-specified constants.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Presence/absence of conditioning species is available at prediction locations
    CISO's inputs include a flexible set of species observations; using it for new predictions assumes such observations can be obtained at the target sites.
  • domain assumption Spatially separate test sets evaluate out-of-sample generalization without information leakage
    The paper's key claim is improved performance on spatially separate test sets; this requires the spatial split to prevent environmental or biotic leakage from training into test locations.
  • domain assumption The benchmark datasets reflect realistic incompleteness of species observation data
    CISO is validated on sPlotOpen, SatBird, and SatButterfly; claims about applicability to real-world SDMs assume these datasets represent the missingness patterns found in practice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CISO: Species Distribution Modeling Conditioned on Incomplete Species Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KUZ23QEH

@misc{pith2026250806704,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CISO: Species Distribution Modeling Conditioned on Incomplete Species Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KUZ23QEH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.06704}
}
read the original abstract

Species distribution models (SDMs) are widely used to predict species' geographic distributions, serving as critical tools for ecological research and conservation planning. Typically, SDMs relate species occurrences to environmental variables representing abiotic factors, such as temperature, precipitation, and soil properties. However, species distributions are also strongly influenced by biotic interactions with other species, which are often overlooked. While some methods partially address this limitation by incorporating biotic interactions, they often assume symmetrical pairwise relationships between species and require consistent co-occurrence data. In practice, species observations are sparse, and the availability of information about the presence or absence of other species varies significantly across locations. To address these challenges, we propose CISO, a deep learning-based method for species distribution modeling Conditioned on Incomplete Species Observations. CISO enables predictions to be conditioned on a flexible number of species observations alongside environmental variables, accommodating the variability and incompleteness of available biotic data. We demonstrate our approach using three datasets representing different species groups: sPlotOpen for plants, SatBird for birds, and a new dataset, SatButterfly, for butterflies. Our results show that including partial biotic information improves predictive performance on spatially separate test sets. When conditioned on a subset of species within the same dataset, CISO outperforms alternative methods in predicting the distribution of the remaining species. Furthermore, we show that combining observations from multiple datasets can improve performance. CISO is a promising ecological tool, capable of incorporating incomplete biotic information and identifying potential interactions between species from disparate taxa.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. P. Anderson. When and how should biotic interactions be considered in models of species niches and distributions? Journal of Biogeography, 44 0 (1): 0 8--17, 2017

    2017

  2. [2]

    M. B. Ara \'u jo and M. Luoto. The importance of biotic interactions for modelling species distributions under climate change. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 16 0 (6): 0 743--753, 2007

    2007

  3. [3]

    M. P. Austin and K. P. Van Niel. Improving species distribution models for climate change studies: variable selection and scale, 2011

    2011

  4. [4]

    Barbet-Massin, Q

    M. Barbet-Massin, Q. Rome, C. Villemant, and F. Courchamp. Can species distribution models really predict the expansion of invasive species? PloS one, 13 0 (3): 0 e0193085, 2018

    2018

  5. [5]

    F. G. Blanchet, K. Cazelles, and D. Gravel. Co-occurrence is not evidence of ecological interactions. Ecology Letters, 23 0 (7): 0 1050--1063, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    M. L. Borowiec, R. B. Dikow, P. B. Frandsen, A. McKeeken, G. Valentini, and A. E. White. Deep learning as a tool for ecology and evolution. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 13 0 (8): 0 1640--1660, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Botella, A

    C. Botella, A. Joly, P. Bonnet, P. Monestiez, and F. Munoz. A deep learning approach to species distribution modelling. Multimedia Tools and Applications for Environmental & Biodiversity Informatics, pages 169--199, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Bourhis, J

    Y. Bourhis, J. R. Bell, C. R. Shortall, W. E. Kunin, and A. E. Milne. Explainable neural networks for trait-based multispecies distribution modelling—a case study with butterflies and moths. Methods in ecology and evolution, 14 0 (6): 0 1531--1542, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    Bruelheide, J

    H. Bruelheide, J. Dengler, B. Jim \'e nez-Alfaro, O. Purschke, S. M. Hennekens, M. Chytr \`y , V. D. Pillar, F. Jansen, J. Kattge, B. Sandel, et al. splot--a new tool for global vegetation analyses. Journal of Vegetation Science, 30 0 (2): 0 161--186, 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    P. Brun, D. N. Karger, D. Zurell, P. Descombes, L. C. de Witte, R. de Lutio, J. D. Wegner, and N. E. Zimmermann. Multispecies deep learning using citizen science data produces more informative plant community models. Nature Communications, 15 0 (1): 0 4421, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Cazzolla Gatti, P

    R. Cazzolla Gatti, P. B. Reich, J. G. Gamarra, T. Crowther, C. Hui, A. Morera, J.-F. Bastin, S. De-Miguel, G.-J. Nabuurs, J.-C. Svenning, et al. The number of tree species on earth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119 0 (6): 0 e2115329119, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Chowdhury, R

    S. Chowdhury, R. A. Fuller, H. Dingle, J. W. Chapman, and M. P. Zalucki. Migration in butterflies: a global overview. Biological Reviews, 96 0 (4): 0 1462--1483, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    K. L. Cockle, K. Martin, and T. Weso owski. Woodpeckers, decay, and the future of cavity-nesting vertebrate communities worldwide. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9 0 (7): 0 377--382, 2011

    2011

  6. [14]

    E. Cole, B. Deneu, T. Lorieul, M. Servajean, C. Botella, D. Morris, N. Jojic, P. Bonnet, and A. Joly. The GeoLifeCLEF 2020 dataset. Preprint arXiv:2004.04192, 2020

    2020 arXiv

  7. [15]

    E. Cole, G. Van Horn, C. Lange, A. Shepard, P. Leary, P. Perona, S. Loarie, and O. Mac Aodha. Spatial implicit neural representations for global-scale species mapping. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 6320--6342. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    C. L. Davis, Y. Bai, D. Chen, O. Robinson, V. Ruiz-Gutierrez, C. P. Gomes, and D. Fink. Deep learning with citizen science data enables estimation of species diversity and composition at continental extents. Ecology, 104 0 (12): 0 e4175, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    J. Devlin. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    A. A. Dhondt. Interspecific competition in birds, volume 2. Oxford University Press, 2012

    2012

  11. [19]

    o mermann, B. Schr \

    C. F. Dormann, S. J. Schymanski, J. Cabral, I. Chuine, C. Graham, F. Hartig, M. Kearney, X. Morin, C. R \"o mermann, B. Schr \"o der, et al. Correlation and process in species distribution models: bridging a dichotomy. Journal of Biogeography, 39 0 (12): 0 2119--2131, 2012

    2012

  12. [20]

    C. F. Dormann, M. Bobrowski, D. M. Dehling, D. J. Harris, F. Hartig, H. Lischke, M. D. Moretti, J. Pagel, S. Pinkert, M. Schleuning, et al. Biotic interactions in species distribution modelling: 10 questions to guide interpretation and avoid false conclusions. Global ecology a...

    2018

  13. [21]

    Dosovitskiy

    A. Dosovitskiy. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Elith and J

    J. Elith and J. R. Leathwick. Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics, 40 0 (1): 0 677--697, 2009

    2009

  15. [23]

    J. M. Escamilla Molgora, L. Sedda, P. J. Diggle, and P. M. Atkinson. A taxonomic-based joint species distribution model for presence-only data. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 19 0 (187): 0 20210681, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Ester, H.-P

    M. Ester, H.-P. Kriegel, J. Sander, and X. Xu. A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD'96, page 226–231. AAAI Press, 1996

    1996

  17. [25]

    Fazzari, D

    E. Fazzari, D. Romano, F. Falchi, and C. Stefanini. Animal behavior analysis methods using deep learning: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14002, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    S. E. Fick and R. J. Hijmans. WorldClim 2: new 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology, 37 0 (12): 0 4302--4315, 2017. ISSN 1097-0088. doi:10.1002/joc.5086. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/joc.508...

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    Fourcade, A

    Y. Fourcade, A. G. Besnard, and J. Secondi. Paintings predict the distribution of species, or the challenge of selecting environmental predictors and evaluation statistics. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 27 0 (2): 0 245--256, 2018

    2018

  20. [28]

    J. S. Fralish. The keystone role of oak and hickory in the central hardwood forest. In Upland Oak Ecology Symposium: History, Current Conditions, and Sustainability: Fayetteville, Arkansas, October 7-10, 2002, number 73 in General Technical Report SRS, page 78. Southern Resear...

    2002

  21. [29]

    G \'o mez-Aparicio

    L. G \'o mez-Aparicio. The role of plant interactions in the restoration of degraded ecosystems: a meta-analysis across life-forms and ecosystems. Journal of Ecology, 97 0 (6): 0 1202--1214, 2009

    2009

  22. [30]

    Gorishniy, I

    Y. Gorishniy, I. Rubachev, V. Khrulkov, and A. Babenko. Revisiting deep learning models for tabular data. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34: 0 18932--18943, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Gorishniy, I

    Y. Gorishniy, I. Rubachev, and A. Babenko. On embeddings for numerical features in tabular deep learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 0 24991--25004, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Guisan and W

    A. Guisan and W. Thuiller. Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecology letters, 8 0 (9): 0 993--1009, 2005

    2005

  25. [33]

    Guisan, R

    A. Guisan, R. Tingley, J. B. Baumgartner, I. Naujokaitis-Lewis, P. R. Sutcliffe, A. I. Tulloch, T. J. Regan, L. Brotons, E. McDonald-Madden, C. Mantyka-Pringle, et al. Predicting species distributions for conservation decisions. Ecology letters, 16 0 (12): 0 1424--1435, 2013

    2013

  26. [34]

    Hamilton, C

    M. Hamilton, C. Lange, E. Cole, A. Shepard, S. Heinrich, O. Mac Aodha, G. Van Horn, and S. Maji. Combining observational data and language for species range estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10931, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    D. J. Harris. Generating realistic assemblages with a joint species distribution model. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 6 0 (4): 0 465--473, 2015

    2015

  28. [36]

    Hengl, J

    T. Hengl, J. Mendes de Jesus, G. B. Heuvelink, M. Ruiperez Gonzalez, M. Kilibarda, A. Blagoti \'c , W. Shangguan, M. N. Wright, X. Geng, B. Bauer-Marschallinger, et al. Soilgrids250m: Global gridded soil information based on machine learning. PLoS one, 12 0 (2): 0 e0169748, 2017

    2017

  29. [37]

    Worldclim 1.4 (historical climate conditions)

    Hijmans and al. Worldclim 1.4 (historical climate conditions). International journal of climatology, 25, 2005

    2005

  30. [38]

    Hortal, F

    J. Hortal, F. de Bello, J. A. F. Diniz-Filho, T. M. Lewinsohn, J. M. Lobo, and R. J. Ladle. Seven shortfalls that beset large-scale knowledge of biodiversity. Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics, 46 0 (1): 0 523--549, 2015

    2015

  31. [39]

    W. Jetz, M. A. McGeoch, R. Guralnick, S. Ferrier, J. Beck, M. J. Costello, M. Fernandez, G. N. Geller, P. Keil, C. Merow, et al. Essential biodiversity variables for mapping and monitoring species populations. Nature ecology & evolution, 3 0 (4): 0 539--551, 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    Johnston, W

    A. Johnston, W. M. Hochachka, M. E. Strimas-Mackey, V. Ruiz Gutierrez, O. J. Robinson, E. T. Miller, T. Auer, S. T. Kelling, and D. Fink. Analytical guidelines to increase the value of community science data: An example using ebird data to estimate species distributions. Diver...

    2021

  33. [41]

    M. B. Joseph. Neural hierarchical models of ecological populations. Ecology Letters, 23 0 (4): 0 734--747, 2020

    2020

  34. [42]

    S. Kahl, C. M. Wood, M. Eibl, and H. Klinck. Birdnet: A deep learning solution for avian diversity monitoring. Ecological Informatics, 61: 0 101236, 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    B. A. Kellenberger, K. Winner, and W. Jetz. The performance and potential of deep learning for predicting species distributions. bioRxiv, pages 2024--08, 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Kelling, J

    S. Kelling, J. Gerbracht, D. Fink, C. Lagoze, W.-K. Wong, J. Yu, T. Damoulas, and C. Gomes. eBird : A human/computer learning network for biodiversity conservation and research. AI Magazine, 34, 03 2013

    2013

  37. [45]

    Lanchantin, T

    J. Lanchantin, T. Wang, V. Ordonez, and Y. Qi. General multi-label image classification with transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 16478--16488, June 2021

    2021

  38. [46]

    Lange, E

    C. Lange, E. Cole, G. Horn, and O. Mac Aodha. Active learning-based species range estimation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    2024

  39. [47]

    Loshchilov and F

    I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2019. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=Bkg6RiCqY7

    2019

  40. [48]

    H. K. Mod, D. Scherrer, M. Luoto, and A. Guisan. What we use is not what we know: environmental predictors in plant distribution models. Journal of Vegetation Science, 27 0 (6): 0 1308--1322, 2016

    2016

  41. [49]

    M. S. Norouzzadeh, D. Morris, S. Beery, N. Joshi, N. Jojic, and J. Clune. A deep active learning system for species identification and counting in camera trap images. Methods in ecology and evolution, 12 0 (1): 0 150--161, 2021

    2021

  42. [50]

    S. M. Omohundro. Five balltree construction algorithms, 1989

    1989

  43. [51]

    Ovaskainen, N

    O. Ovaskainen, N. Abrego, P. Halme, and D. Dunson. Using latent variable models to identify large networks of species-to-species associations at different spatial scales. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7 0 (5): 0 549--555, 2016

    2016

  44. [52]

    F. M. Padilla and F. I. Pugnaire. The role of nurse plants in the restoration of degraded environments. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 4 0 (4): 0 196--202, 2006

    2006

  45. [53]

    R. G. Pearson and T. P. Dawson. Predicting the impacts of climate change on the distribution of species: are bioclimate envelope models useful? Global ecology and biogeography, 12 0 (5): 0 361--371, 2003

    2003

  46. [54]

    Pellissier, K

    L. Pellissier, K. Anne Br then, J. Pottier, C. F. Randin, P. Vittoz, A. Dubuis, N. G. Yoccoz, T. Alm, N. E. Zimmermann, and A. Guisan. Species distribution models reveal apparent competitive and facilitative effects of a dominant species on the distribution of tundra plants. E...

    2010

  47. [55]

    Pellissier, R

    L. Pellissier, R. P. Rohr, C. Ndiribe, J.-N. Pradervand, N. Salamin, A. Guisan, and M. Wisz. Combining food web and species distribution models for improved community projections. Ecology and evolution, 3 0 (13): 0 4572--4583, 2013

    2013

  48. [56]

    S. J. Phillips, R. P. Anderson, and R. E. Schapire. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecological modelling, 190 0 (3-4): 0 231--259, 2006

    2006

  49. [57]

    Picek, C

    L. Picek, C. Botella, M. Servajean, C. Leblanc, R. Palard, T. Larcher, B. Deneu, D. Marcos, P. Bonnet, and A. Joly. Geoplant: Spatial plant species prediction dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.13928, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    u nkem \

    G. Poggiato, T. M \"u nkem \"u ller, D. Bystrova, J. Arbel, J. S. Clark, and W. Thuiller. On the interpretations of joint modeling in community ecology. Trends in ecology & evolution, 36 0 (5): 0 391--401, 2021

    2021

  51. [59]

    Poggiato, J

    G. Poggiato, J. Andr \'e oletti, L. J. Pollock, and W. Thuiller. Integrating food webs in species distribution models can improve ecological niche estimation and predictions. Ecography, page e07546, 2025

    2025

  52. [60]

    L. J. Pollock, W. K. Morris, and P. A. Vesk. The role of functional traits in species distributions revealed through a hierarchical model. Ecography, 35 0 (8): 0 716--725, 2012

    2012

  53. [61]

    L. J. Pollock, R. Tingley, W. K. Morris, N. Golding, R. B. O'Hara, K. M. Parris, P. A. Vesk, and M. A. McCarthy. Understanding co-occurrence by modelling species simultaneously with a joint species distribution model (jsdm). Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 5 0 (5): 0 397--406, 2014

    2014

  54. [62]

    L. J. Pollock, L. M. O’connor, K. Mokany, D. F. Rosauer, M. V. Talluto, and W. Thuiller. Protecting biodiversity (in all its complexity): new models and methods. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 35 0 (12): 0 1119--1128, 2020

    2020

  55. [63]

    L. J. Pollock, J. Kitzes, S. Beery, K. M. Gaynor, M. A. Jarzyna, O. Mac Aodha, B. Meyer, D. Rolnick, G. W. Taylor, D. Tuia, et al. Harnessing artificial intelligence to fill global shortfalls in biodiversity knowledge. Nature Reviews Biodiversity, pages 1--17, 2025

    2025

  56. [64]

    K. L. Prudic, K. P. McFarland, J. C. Oliver, R. A. Hutchinson, E. C. Long, J. T. Kerr, and M. Larriv \'e e. ebutterfly: leveraging massive online citizen science for butterfly conservation. Insects, 8 0 (2): 0 53, 2017

    2017

  57. [65]

    D. R. Roberts, V. Bahn, S. Ciuti, M. S. Boyce, J. Elith, G. Guillera-Arroita, S. Hauenstein, J. J. Lahoz-Monfort, B. Schr \"o der, W. Thuiller, et al. Cross-validation strategies for data with temporal, spatial, hierarchical, or phylogenetic structure. Ecography, 40 0 (8): 0 9...

    2017

  58. [66]

    Romera-Romera and D

    D. Romera-Romera and D. Nieto-Lugilde. Should we exploit opportunistic databases with joint species distribution models? artificial and real data suggest it depends on the sampling completeness. Ecography, page e07340, 2024

    2024

  59. [67]

    Romera-Romera and D

    D. Romera-Romera and D. Nieto-Lugilde. Should we exploit opportunistic databases with joint species distribution models? artificial and real data suggest it depends on the sampling completeness. Ecography, 2025 0 (2): 0 e07340, 2025

    2025

  60. [68]

    F. M. Sabatini, J. Lenoir, T. Hattab, E. A. Arnst, M. Chytr \`y , J. Dengler, P. De Ruffray, S. M. Hennekens, U. Jandt, F. Jansen, et al. splotopen--an environmentally balanced, open-access, global dataset of vegetation plots. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 30 0 (9): 0 1740-...

    2021

  61. [69]

    M. Teng, A. Elmustafa, B. Akera, Y. Bengio, H. Radi, H. Larochelle, and D. Rolnick. Satbird: a dataset for bird species distribution modeling using remote sensing and citizen science data. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Bench...

    2023

  62. [70]

    N. v. Tiel, R. Zbinden, E. Dalsasso, B. Kellenberger, L. Pellissier, and D. Tuia. Multi-scale and multimodal species distribution modeling. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 151--159. Springer, 2025

    2025

  63. [71]

    Tikhonov, N

    G. Tikhonov, N. Abrego, D. Dunson, and O. Ovaskainen. Using joint species distribution models for evaluating how species-to-species associations depend on the environmental context. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 8 0 (4): 0 443--452, 2017

    2017

  64. [72]

    D. Tuia, B. Kellenberger, S. Beery, B. R. Costelloe, S. Zuffi, B. Risse, A. Mathis, M. W. Mathis, F. van Langevelde, T. Burghardt, et al. Perspectives in machine learning for wildlife conservation. Nature communications, 13 0 (1): 0 792, 2022

    2022

  65. [73]

    Census Bureau

    U.S. Census Bureau . Cartographic Boundary Files - Shapefile . https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files/time-series/geo/carto-boundary-file.html, 2023. Accessed: 2023-06-06

    2023

  66. [74]

    Vall \'e , G

    C. Vall \'e , G. Poggiato, W. Thuiller, F. Jiguet, K. Princ \'e , and I. Le Viol. Species associations in joint species distribution models: from missing variables to conditional predictions. Journal of Biogeography, 51 0 (2): 0 311--324, 2024

    2024

  67. [75]

    Vaswani, N

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, . Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  68. [76]

    D. G. Wenny. Advantages of seed dispersal: a re-evaluation of directed dispersal. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 3 0 (1): 0 37--50, 2001

    2001

  69. [77]

    D. P. Wilkinson, N. Golding, G. Guillera-Arroita, R. Tingley, and M. A. McCarthy. Defining and evaluating predictions of joint species distribution models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 12 0 (3): 0 394--404, 2021

    2021

  70. [78]

    M. S. Wisz, J. Pottier, W. D. Kissling, L. Pellissier, J. Lenoir, C. F. Damgaard, C. F. Dormann, M. C. Forchhammer, J.-A. Grytnes, A. Guisan, et al. The role of biotic interactions in shaping distributions and realised assemblages of species: implications for species distribut...

    2013

  71. [79]

    E. M. Wood, A. M. Pidgeon, C. Gratton, and T. T. Wilder. Effects of oak barrens habitat management for karner blue butterfly (lycaeides samuelis) on the avian community. Biological Conservation, 144 0 (12): 0 3117--3126, 2011

    2011

  72. [80]

    Zbinden, N

    R. Zbinden, N. M. A. Van Tiel, B. A. Kellenberger, L. Hughes, and D. Tuia. Exploring neural networks and their potential for species distribution modeling. In 11th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) Workshops, 2023

    2023

  73. [81]

    Zbinden, N

    R. Zbinden, N. Van Tiel, B. Kellenberger, L. Hughes, and D. Tuia. On the selection and effectiveness of pseudo-absences for species distribution modeling with deep learning. Ecological Informatics, 81: 0 102623, 2024

    2024

  74. [82]

    Zbinden, N

    R. Zbinden, N. van Tiel, G. Sumbul, C. Vanalli, B. Kellenberger, and D. Tuia. Masksdm with shapley values to improve flexibility, robustness, and explainability in species distribution modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.13057, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  75. [83]

    D. Zurell. Integrating demography, dispersal and interspecific interactions into bird distribution models. Journal of Avian Biology, 48 0 (12): 0 1505--1516, 2017

    2017

  76. [84]

    Zurell, L

    D. Zurell, L. J. Pollock, and W. Thuiller. Do joint species distribution models reliably detect interspecific interactions from co-occurrence data in homogenous environments? Ecography, 41 0 (11): 0 1812--1819, 2018

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.