Species distributional or trait data based on range map (extent‐of‐occurrence) or atlas survey data often display spatial autocorrelation, i.e. locations close to each other exhibit more similar values than those further apart. If this pattern remains present in the residuals of a statistical model based on such data, one of the key assumptions of standard statistical analyses, that residuals are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d), is violated. The violation of the assumption of i.i.d. residuals may bias parameter estimates and can increase type I error rates (falsely rejecting the null hypothesis of no effect). While this is increasingly recognised by researchers analysing species distribution data, there is, to our knowledge, no comprehensive overview of the many available spatial statistical methods to take spatial autocorrelation into account in tests of statistical significance. Here, we describe six different statistical approaches to infer correlates of species’ distributions, for both presence/absence (binary response) and species abundance data (poisson or normally distributed response), while accounting for spatial autocorrelation in model residuals: autocovariate regression; spatial eigenvector mapping; generalised least squares; (conditional and simultaneous) autoregressive models and generalised estimating equations. A comprehensive comparison of the relative merits of these methods is beyond the scope of this paper. To demonstrate each method's implementation, however, we undertook preliminary tests based on simulated data. These preliminary tests verified that most of the spatial modeling techniques we examined showed good type I error control and precise parameter estimates, at least when confronted with simplistic simulated data containing spatial autocorrelation in the errors. However, we found that for presence/absence data the results and conclusions were very variable between the different methods. This is likely due to the low information content of binary maps. Also, in contrast with previous studies, we found that autocovariate methods consistently underestimated the effects of environmental controls of species distributions. Given their widespread use, in particular for the modelling of species presence/absence data (e.g. climate envelope models), we argue that this warrants further study and caution in their use. To aid other ecologists in making use of the methods described, code to implement them in freely available software is provided in an electronic appendix.

Aim: Advancement in ecological methods predicting species distributions is a crucial precondition for deriving sound management actions. Maximum entropy (MaxEnt) models are a popular tool to predict species distributions, as they are considered able to cope well with sparse, irregularly sampled data and minor location errors. Although a fundamental assumption of MaxEnt is that the entire area of interest has been systematically sampled, in practice, MaxEnt models are usually built from occurrence records that are spatially biased towards better‐surveyed areas. Two common, yet not compared, strategies to cope with uneven sampling effort are spatial filtering of occurrence data and background manipulation using environmental data with the same spatial bias as occurrence data. We tested these strategies using simulated data and a recently collated dataset on Malay civet Viverra tangalunga in Borneo.Location: Borneo, Southeast Asia.Methods: We collated 504 occurrence records of Malay civets from Borneo of which 291 records were from 2001 to 2011 and used them in the MaxEnt analysis (baseline scenario) together with 25 environmental input variables. We simulated datasets for two virtual species (similar to a range‐restricted highland and a lowland species) using the same number of records for model building. As occurrence records were biased towards north‐eastern Borneo, we investigated the efficacy of spatial filtering versus background manipulation to reduce overprediction or underprediction in specific areas.Results: Spatial filtering minimized omission errors (false negatives) and commission errors (false positives). We recommend that when sample size is insufficient to allow spatial filtering, manipulation of the background dataset is preferable to not correcting for sampling bias, although predictions were comparatively weak and commission errors increased.Main Conclusions: We conclude that a substantial improvement in the quality of model predictions can be achieved if uneven sampling effort is taken into account, thereby improving the efficacy of species conservation planning.

Species distribution models (SDMs) constitute the most common class of models across ecology, evolution and conservation. The advent of ready‐to‐use software packages and increasing availability of digital geoinformation have considerably assisted the application of SDMs in the past decade, greatly enabling their broader use for informing conservation and management, and for quantifying impacts from global change. However, models must be fit for purpose, with all important aspects of their development and applications properly considered. Despite the widespread use of SDMs, standardisation and documentation of modelling protocols remain limited, which makes it hard to assess whether development steps are appropriate for end use. To address these issues, we propose a standard protocol for reporting SDMs, with an emphasis on describing how a study's objective is achieved through a series of modeling decisions. We call this the ODMAP (Overview, Data, Model, Assessment and Prediction) protocol, as its components reflect the main steps involved in building SDMs and other empirically‐based biodiversity models. The ODMAP protocol serves two main purposes. First, it provides a checklist for authors, detailing key steps for model building and analyses, and thus represents a quick guide and generic workflow for modern SDMs. Second, it introduces a structured format for documenting and communicating the models, ensuring transparency and reproducibility, facilitating peer review and expert evaluation of model quality, as well as meta‐analyses. We detail all elements of ODMAP, and explain how it can be used for different model objectives and applications, and how it complements efforts to store associated metadata and define modelling standards. We illustrate its utility by revisiting nine previously published case studies, and provide an interactive web‐based application to facilitate its use. We plan to advance ODMAP by encouraging its further refinement and adoption by the scientific community.