Abstract
Here, we respond to Booth's criticism of our paper, “Predictive ability of a process‐based versus a correlative species distribution model.” Booth argues that our usage of the MaxEnt model was flawed and that the conclusions of our paper are by implication flawed. We respond by clarifying that the error Booth implies we made was not made in our analysis, and we repeat statements from the original manuscript which anticipated such criticisms. In addition, we illustrate that using BIOCLIM variables in a MaxEnt analysis as recommended by Booth does not change the conclusions of the original analysis. That is, high performance in the training data domain did not equate to reliable predictions in novel data domains, and the process model transferred into novel data domains better than the correlative model did. We conclude by discussing a hidden implication of our study, namely, that process‐based SDMs negate the need for BIOCLIM‐type variables and therefore reframe the variable selection problem in species distribution modeling.
In response to a letter by Booth, we illustrate that using BIOCLIM variables in a MaxEnt analysis as recommended by Booth does not change the conclusions we drew in the original analysis. That is, high performance in the training data range did not equate to reliable predictions in novel data domains, and the process model we used transferred into novel data domains better than the correlative model did.