The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Niches and distributional areas: Concepts, methods, and assumptions
Open accessAbstract
Estimating actual and potential areas of distribution of species via ecological niche modeling has become a very active field of research, yet important conceptual issues in this field remain confused. We argue that conceptual clarity is enhanced by adopting restricted definitions of “niche” that enable operational definitions of basic concepts like fundamental, potential, and realized niches and potential and actual distributional areas. We apply these definitions to the question of niche conservatism, addressing what it is that is conserved and showing with a quantitative example how niche change can be measured. In this example, we display the extremely irregular structure of niche space, arguing that it is an important factor in understanding niche evolution. Many cases of apparently successful models of distributions ignore biotic factors: we suggest explanations to account for this paradox. Finally, relating the probability of observing a species to ecological factors, we address the issue of what objects are actually calculated by different niche modeling algorithms and stress the fact that methods that use only presence data calculate very different quantities than methods that use absence data. We conclude that the results of niche modeling exercises can be interpreted much better if the ecological and mathematical assumptions of the modeling process are made explicit.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hutchinson, G. E. (1957) · Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology · doi:10.1101/sqb.1957.022.01.039 · Cited by 6,228
Pearson, R. G., & Dawson, T. P. (2003) · Global Ecology and Biogeography · doi:10.1046/j.1466-822x.2003.00042.x · Cited by 4,252
COMPETITIVE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN TREE SPECIES IN NEW ZEALAND'S OLD-GROWTH INDIGENOUS FORESTS
Leathwick, J. R., & Austin, M. P. (2001) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[2560:cibtsi]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 243
Cited by
A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists
Elith, J., Phillips, S. J., Hastie, T., Dudík, M., Chee, Y. E., & Yates, C. J. (2011) · Diversity and Distributions · doi:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00725.x · Cited by 6,699
Selecting pseudo‐absences for species distribution models: how, where and how many?
Barbet‐Massin, M., Jiguet, F., Albert, C. H., & Thuiller, W. (2012) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.2041-210x.2011.00172.x · Cited by 2,716
Hutchinson's duality: The once and future niche
Colwell, R. K., & Rangel, T. F. (2009) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0901650106 · Cited by 769
Species Distribution Modeling and Ecological Niche Modeling: Getting the Concepts Right
Peterson, A. T., & Soberón, J. (2012) · Natureza & Conservação · doi:10.4322/natcon.2012.019 · Cited by 702
Self-citationThe uncertain nature of absences and their importance in species distribution modelling
Lobo, J. M., Jiménez‐Valverde, A., & Hortal, J. (2010) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.06039.x · Cited by 656
Metadata
- Authors
- Soberón, J., & Nakamura, M.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2009-11-17
- Volume
- 106
- Issue
- supplement_2
- Pages
- 19644-19650
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2034795975
- Cited by
- 1,306
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 21.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Niches and distributional areas: Concepts, methods, and assumptions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0901637106
- The paper
- Soberón, J., & Nakamura, M. (2009). Niches and distributional areas: Concepts, methods, and assumptions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0901637106
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.