Sets of presence records used to model species’ distributions typically consist of observations collected opportunistically rather than systematically. As a result, sampling probability is geographically uneven, which may confound the model's characterization of the species’ distribution. Modelers frequently address sampling bias by manipulating training data: either subsampling presence data or creating a similar spatial bias in non‐presence background data. We tested a new method, which we call ‘background thickening’, in the latter category. Background thickening entails concentrating background locations around presence locations in proportion to presence location density. We compared background thickening to two established sampling bias correction methods – target group background selection and presence thinning – using simulated data and data from a case study. In the case study, background thickening and presence thinning performed similarly well, both producing better model discrimination than target group background selection, and better model calibration than models without correction. In the simulation, background thickening performed better than presence thinning when the number of simulated presence locations was low, and vice versa. We discuss drawbacks to target group background selection, why background thickening and presence thinning are conservative but robust sampling bias correction methods, and why background thickening is better than presence thinning for small sample sizes. Particularly, background thickening is advantageous for treating sampling bias when data are scarce because it avoids discarding presence records.

The widely used “Maxent” software for modeling species distributions from presence‐only data (Phillips et al., Ecological Modelling, 190, 2006, 231) tends to produce models with high‐predictive performance but low‐ecological interpretability, and implications of Maxent's statistical approach to variable transformation, model fitting, and model selection remain underappreciated. In particular, Maxent's approach to model selection through lasso regularization has been shown to give less parsimonious distribution models—that is, models which are more complex but not necessarily predictively better—than subset selection. In this paper, we introduce the MIAmaxent R package, which provides a statistical approach to modeling species distributions similar to Maxent's, but with subset selection instead of lasso regularization. The simpler models typically produced by subset selection are ecologically more interpretable, and making distribution models more grounded in ecological theory is a fundamental motivation for using MIAmaxent. To that end, the package executes variable transformation based on expected occurrence–environment relationships and contains tools for exploring data and interrogating models in light of knowledge of the modeled system. Additionally, MIAmaxent implements two different kinds of model fitting: maximum entropy fitting for presence‐only data and logistic regression (GLM) for presence–absence data. Unlike Maxent, MIAmaxent decouples variable transformation, model fitting, and model selection, which facilitates methodological comparisons and gives the modeler greater flexibility when choosing a statistical approach to a given distribution modeling problem.