Species distribution models (SDMs) have proven valuable in filling gaps in our knowledge of species occurrences. However, despite their broad applicability, SDMs exhibit critical shortcomings due to limitations in species occurrence data. These limitations include, in particular, issues related to sample size, positional uncertainty, and sampling bias. In addition, it is widely recognised that the quality of SDMs as well as the approaches used to mitigate the impact of the aforementioned data limitations depend on species ecology. While numerous studies have evaluated the effects of these data limitations on SDM performance, a synthesis of their results is lacking. However, without a comprehensive understanding of their individual and combined effects, our ability to predict the influence of these issues on the quality of modelled species–environment associations remains largely uncertain, limiting the value of model outputs. In this paper, we review studies that have evaluated the effects of sample size, positional uncertainty, sampling bias, and species ecology on SDMs outputs. We build upon their findings to provide recommendations for the critical assessment of species data intended for use in SDMs.

Several global digital elevation models (DEMs) have been developed in the last two decades. The most recent addition to the family of global DEMs is the TanDEM-X DEM. The original version of the TanDEM-X DEM is, however, a nonedited product (i.e., it contains local artefacts such as voids, spikes, and holes). Therefore, subsequent identification of local artefacts and their editing is necessary. In this study, we evaluated the accuracy of the original TanDEM-X DEM and its improved edited version, the Copernicus DEM, in three major European mountain ranges (the Alps, the Carpathians, and the Pyrenees) using a digital surface model derived from airborne laser scanning data as a reference. In addition, to evaluate the applicability of data acquisition characteristics (coverage map, consistency mask, and height error map) and terrain characteristics (slope, aspect, altitude) to the localization of problematic sites, we modeled their associations with the TanDEM-X DEM error. We revealed local occurrences of large errors in the TanDEM-X DEM that were typically found on steep ridges or in canyons, which were largely corrected in the Copernicus DEM. The editing procedure used for the Copernicus DEM construction was evidently successful as the RMSE for the TanDEM-X and Copernicus DEMs at the 90 m resolution improved from 45 m to 12 m, from 16 m to 6 m, and from 24 m to 9 m for the Alps, the Pyrenees, and the Carpathians, respectively. The Copernicus DEM at the 30 m resolution performed similarly well. The boosted regression trees showed that acquisition characteristics provided as auxiliary data are useful for locating problematic sites and explained 28–50% of deviance of the absolute vertical error. The absolute vertical error was strongly related to the height error map. Finally, up to 26% of cells in the Copernicus DEM were filled using DEMs from different time periods and, hence, users performing multitemporal analysis or requiring data from a specific time period in the mountain environment should be wary when using TanDEM-X and its derivations. We suggest that when filling problematic sites using alternative DEMs, more attention should be paid to the period of their collection to minimize the temporal displacement in the final products.

Global mapping of forest height is an extremely important task for estimating habitat quality and modeling biodiversity. Recently, three global canopy height maps have been released, the global forest canopy height map (GFCH), the high‐resolution canopy height model of the Earth (HRCH), and the global map of tree canopy height (GMTCH). Here, we assessed their accuracy and usability for biodiversity modeling. We examined their accuracy by comparing them with the reference canopy height models derived from airborne laser scanning (ALS). Our results show considerable differences between the evaluated maps. The root mean square error ranged between 10 and 18 m for GFCH, 9–11 m for HRCH, and 10–17 m for GMTCH, respectively. GFCH and GMTCH consistently underestimated the height of all canopies regardless of their height, while HRCH tended to overestimate the height of low canopies and underestimate tall canopies. Biodiversity models using predicted global canopy height maps as input data are sufficient for estimating simple relationships between species occurrence and canopy height, but their use leads to a considerable decrease in the discrimination ability of the models and to mischaracterization of species niches where derived indices (e.g., canopy height heterogeneity) are concerned. We showed that canopy height heterogeneity is considerably underestimated in the evaluated global canopy height maps. We urge that for temperate areas rich in ALS data, activities should concentrate on harmonizing ALS canopy height maps rather than relying on modeled global products.

Species distribution models (SDMs) are widely used in ecology and conservation. However, their performance is known to be affected by a variety of factors related to species occurrence characteristics. In this study, we used a virtual species approach to overcome the difficulties associated with testing of combined effects of those factors on performance of presence-only SDMs when using real data. We focused on the individual and combined roles of factors related to response variable (i.e. sample size, sampling bias, environmental filtering, species prevalence, and species response to environmental gradients). Results suggest that environmental filtering is not necessarily helpful and should not be performed blindly, without evidence of bias in species occurrences. The more gradual the species response to environmental gradients is, the greater is the model sensitivity to an inappropriate use of environmental filtering, although this sensitivity decreases with higher species prevalence. Results show that SDMs are affected to the greatest degree by the species response to environmental gradients, species prevalence, and sample size. Models’ accuracy decreased with sample size below 300 presences. Furthermore, a high level of interactions among individual factors was observed. Ignoring the combined effects of factors may lead to misleading outcomes and conclusions.

The performance of species distribution models (SDMs) is known to be affected by analysis grain and positional error of species occurrences. Coarsening of the analysis grain has been suggested to compensate for positional errors. Nevertheless, this way of dealing with positional errors has never been thoroughly tested. With increasing use of fine‐scale environmental data in SDMs, it is important to test this assumption. Models using fine‐scale environmental data are more likely to be negatively affected by positional error as the inaccurate occurrences might easier end up in unsuitable environment. This can result in inappropriate conservation actions. Here, we examined the trade‐offs between positional error and analysis grain and provide recommendations for best practice. We generated narrow niche virtual species using environmental variables derived from LiDAR point clouds at 5 × 5 m fine‐scale. We simulated the positional error in the range of 5 m to 99 m and evaluated the effects of several spatial grains in the range of 5 m to 500 m. In total, we assessed 49 combinations of positional accuracy and analysis grain. We used three modelling techniques (MaxEnt, BRT and GLM) and evaluated their discrimination ability, niche overlap with virtual species and change in realized niche. We found that model performance decreased with increasing positional error in species occurrences and coarsening of the analysis grain. Most importantly, we showed that coarsening the analysis grain to compensate for positional error did not improve model performance. Our results reject coarsening of the analysis grain as a solution to address the negative effects of positional error on model performance. We recommend fitting models with the finest possible analysis grain and as close to the response grain as possible even when available species occurrences suffer from positional errors. If there are significant positional errors in species occurrences, users are unlikely to benefit from making additional efforts to obtain higher resolution environmental data unless they also minimize the positional errors of species occurrences. Our findings are also applicable to coarse analysis grain, especially for fragmented habitats, and for species with narrow niche breadth.

Species occurrences inherently include positional error. Such error can be problematic for species distribution models (SDMs), especially those based on fine‐resolution environmental data. It has been suggested that there could be a link between the influence of positional error and the width of the species ecological niche. Although positional errors in species occurrence data may imply serious limitations, especially for modelling species with narrow ecological niche, it has never been thoroughly explored. We used a virtual species approach to assess the effects of the positional error on fine‐scale SDMs for species with environmental niches of different widths. We simulated three virtual species with varying niche breadth, from specialist to generalist. The true distribution of these virtual species was then altered by introducing different levels of positional error (from 5 to 500 m). We built generalized linear models and MaxEnt models using the distribution of the three virtual species (unaltered and altered) and a combination of environmental data at 5 m resolution. The models’ performance and niche overlap were compared to assess the effect of positional error with varying niche breadth in the geographical and environmental space. The positional error negatively impacted performance and niche overlap metrics. The amplitude of the influence of positional error depended on the species niche, with models for specialist species being more affected than those for generalist species. The positional error had the same effect on both modelling techniques. Finally, increasing sample size did not mitigate the negative influence of positional error. We showed that fine‐scale SDMs are considerably affected by positional error, even when such error is low. Therefore, where new surveys are undertaken, we recommend paying attention to data collection techniques to minimize the positional error in occurrence data and thus to avoid its negative effect on SDMs, especially when studying specialist species.