Prediction of species’ distributions is central to diverse applications in ecology, evolution and conservation science. There is increasing electronic access to vast sets of occurrence records in museums and herbaria, yet little effective guidance on how best to use this information in the context of numerous approaches for modelling distributions. To meet this need, we compared 16 modelling methods over 226 species from 6 regions of the world, creating the most comprehensive set of model comparisons to date. We used presence‐only data to fit models, and independent presence‐absence data to evaluate the predictions. Along with well‐established modelling methods such as generalised additive models and GARP and BIOCLIM, we explored methods that either have been developed recently or have rarely been applied to modelling species’ distributions. These include machine‐learning methods and community models, both of which have features that may make them particularly well suited to noisy or sparse information, as is typical of species’ occurrence data. Presence‐only data were effective for modelling species’ distributions for many species and regions. The novel methods consistently outperformed more established methods. The results of our analysis are promising for the use of data from museums and herbaria, especially as methods suited to the noise inherent in such data improve.

Most methods for modeling species distributions from occurrence records require additional data representing the range of environmental conditions in the modeled region. These data, called background or pseudo‐absence data, are usually drawn at random from the entire region, whereas occurrence collection is often spatially biased toward easily accessed areas. Since the spatial bias generally results in environmental bias, the difference between occurrence collection and background sampling may lead to inaccurate models. To correct the estimation, we propose choosing background data with the same bias as occurrence data. We investigate theoretical and practical implications of this approach. Accurate information about spatial bias is usually lacking, so explicit biased sampling of background sites may not be possible. However, it is likely that an entire target group of species observed by similar methods will share similar bias. We therefore explore the use of all occurrences within a target group as biased background data. We compare model performance using target‐group background and randomly sampled background on a comprehensive collection of data for 226 species from diverse regions of the world. We find that target‐group background improves average performance for all the modeling methods we consider, with the choice of background data having as large an effect on predictive performance as the choice of modeling method. The performance improvement due to target‐group background is greatest when there is strong bias in the target‐group presence records. Our approach applies to regression‐based modeling methods that have been adapted for use with occurrence data, such as generalized linear or additive models and boosted regression trees, and to Maxent, a probability density estimation method. We argue that increased awareness of the implications of spatial bias in surveys, and possible modeling remedies, will substantially improve predictions of species distributions.

Summary: Biogeographical models of species’ distributions are essential tools for assessing impacts of changing environmental conditions on natural communities and ecosystems. Practitioners need more reliable predictions to integrate into conservation planning (e.g. reserve design and management). Most models still largely ignore or inappropriately take into account important features of species’ distributions, such as spatial autocorrelation, dispersal and migration, biotic and environmental interactions. Whether distributions of natural communities or ecosystems are better modelled by assembling individual species’ predictions in a bottom‐up approach or modelled as collective entities is another important issue. An international workshop was organized to address these issues. We discuss more specifically six issues in a methodological framework for generalized regression: (i) links with ecological theory; (ii) optimal use of existing data and artificially generated data; (iii) incorporating spatial context; (iv) integrating ecological and environmental interactions; (v) assessing prediction errors and uncertainties; and (vi) predicting distributions of communities or collective properties of biodiversity. Synthesis and applications. Better predictions of the effects of impacts on biological communities and ecosystems can emerge only from more robust species’ distribution models and better documentation of the uncertainty associated with these models. An improved understanding of causes of species’ distributions, especially at their range limits, as well as of ecological assembly rules and ecosystem functioning, is necessary if further progress is to be made. A better collaborative effort between theoretical and functional ecologists, ecological modellers and statisticians is required to reach these goals.