AbstractPresence‐only data present challenges for selecting thresholds to transform species distribution modeling results into binary outputs. In this article, we compare two recently published threshold selection methods (maxSSS and maxFpb) and examine the effectiveness of the threshold‐based prevalence estimation approach. Six virtual species with varying prevalence were simulated within a real landscape in southeastern Australia. Presence‐only models were built with DOMAIN, generalized linear model, Maxent, and Random Forest. Thresholds were selected with two methods maxSSS and maxFpb with four presence‐only datasets with different ratios of the number of known presences to the number of random points (KP–RPratio). Sensitivity, specificity, true skill statistic, and F measure were used to evaluate the performance of the results. Species prevalence was estimated as the ratio of the number of predicted presences to the total number of points in the evaluation dataset. Thresholds selected with maxFpb varied as the KP–RPratio of the threshold selection datasets changed. Datasets with the KP–RPratio around 1 generally produced better results than scores distant from 1. Results produced by We conclude that maxFpb had specificity too low for very common species using Random Forest and Maxent models. In contrast, maxSSS produced consistent results whichever dataset was used. The estimation of prevalence was almost always biased, and the bias was very large for DOMAIN and Random Forest predictions. We conclude that maxFpb is affected by the KP–RPratio of the threshold selection datasets, but maxSSS is almost unaffected by this ratio. Unbiased estimations of prevalence are difficult to be determined using the threshold‐based approach.
