Abstract:<section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Aim</h3><p>Forecasting changes in species distribution under future scenarios is one of the most prolific areas of application for species distribution models (SDMs). However, no consensus yet exists on the reliability of such models for drawing conclusions on species' distribution response to changing climate. In this study, we provide an overview of common modelling practices in the field and assess the reliability of model predictions using a virtual species approach.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Location</h3><p>Global.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Methods</h3><p>We first review papers published between 2015 and 2019. Then, we use a virtual species approach and three commonly applied SDM algorithms (GLM, MaxEnt and random forest) to assess the estimated and actual predictive performance of models parameterized with different modelling settings and violations of modelling assumptions.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Results</h3><p>Most SDM papers relied on single models (65%) and small samples (<i>N</i> < 50, 62%), used presence‐only data (85%), binarized models' output (74%) and used a split‐sample validation (94%). Our simulation reveals that the split‐sample validation tends to be over‐optimistic compared to the real performance, whereas spatial block validation provides a more honest estimate, except when datasets are environmentally biased. The binarization of predicted probabilities of presence reduces models' predictive ability considerably. Sample size is one of the main predictors of the real model accuracy, but has little influence on estimated accuracy. Finally, the inclusion of ecologically irrelevant predictors and the violation of modelling assumptions increases estimated accuracy but decreases real accuracy of model projections, leading to biased estimates of range contraction and expansion. </p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Main conclusions</h3><p>Our ability to predict future species distribution is low on average, particularly when models' predictions are binarized. A robust validation by spatially independent samples is required, but does not rule out inflation of model accuracy by assumption violation. Our findings call for caution in the application and interpretation of SDM projections under different climates.</p></section>

Presence-only species distribution models are sensitive to sample prevalence: Evaluating models using spatial prediction stability and accuracy metrics

Assessing the reliability of species distribution projections in climate change research

Dealing with overprediction in species distribution models: How adding distance constraints can improve model accuracy

The interplay of various sources of noise on reliability of species distribution models hinges on ecological specialisation

Measuring and comparing the accuracy of species distribution models with presence–absence data

How sensitive are species distribution models to different background point selection strategies? A test with species at various equilibrium levels

Structuring the unstructured: estimating species-specific absence from multi-species presence data to inform pseudo-absence selection in species distribution models

Presence-only and Presence-absence Data for Comparing Species Distribution Modeling Methods

Evaluating species distribution model predictions through time against paleozoological records

Evaluating the predictive performance of presence-absence models: Why can the same model appear excellent or poor?

Testing whether ensemble modelling is advantageous for maximising predictive performance of species distribution models

Without quality presence–absence data, discrimination metrics such as TSS can be misleading measures of model performance

The shadow model: how and why small choices in spatially explicit species distribution models affect predictions

Species distribution models for invasive Eurasian watermilfoil highlight the importance of data quality and limitations of discrimination accuracy metrics

Dealing with sampling bias and inferring absence data to improve distribution models of a widely distributed vulnerable marsupial

Evaluating presence-absence models in ecology: the need to account for prevalence

The effect of sample size and species characteristics on performance of different species distribution modeling methods

Ecological and biological indicators of the accuracy of species distribution models: lessons from European bryophytes

MaxEnt brings comparable results when the input data are being completed; Model parameterization of four species distribution models

Effects of sample size on the performance of species distribution models

Dealing with area‐to‐point spatial misalignment in species distribution models