The use of spatial ecological modelling as a tool for improving the assessment of geographic range size of threatened species

RF showed a lower prediction error than GLM. Higher accuracy was achieved for species with higher number of occurrences and narrower ecological niche. SA was always greater than AOO measured with the 2 km × 2 km grid method. SA was greater than EOO, measured by both MCP and α-hull methods, for species with localised distribution, while it was smaller for widely distributed species. EOO-α-hull area was equal or smaller than that calculated by MCP depending on the spatial distribution of species. AOO measured considering the SA within the EOO-MCP was greater than that measured using the standard 2 km × 2 km grid. Conversely, AOO calculated considering the suitable area within the EOO-α-hull showed variable results, being smaller or greater than the 2 km × 2 km grid AOO depending on the ecological niche and spatial distribution of species. According to our results, SEM does not provide an effective alternative to topological methods for the estimate of EOO and AOO. However, it may be considered a useful tool to estimate AOO within the boundaries of EOO measured by the α-hull method, because it reduces some potential sources of inconsistency and bias.