Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 966

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Niches, models, and climate change: Assessing the assumptions and uncertainties

Open access
Wiens, John A., Stralberg, Diana, Jongsomjit, Dennis, Howell, Christine A., Snyder, Mark A.·2009·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

As the rate and magnitude of climate change accelerate, understanding the consequences becomes increasingly important. Species distribution models (SDMs) based on current ecological niche constraints are used to project future species distributions. These models contain assumptions that add to the uncertainty in model projections stemming from the structure of the models, the algorithms used to translate niche associations into distributional probabilities, the quality and quantity of data, and mismatches between the scales of modeling and data. We illustrate the application of SDMs using two climate models and two distributional algorithms, together with information on distributional shifts in vegetation types, to project fine-scale future distributions of 60 California landbird species. Most species are projected to decrease in distribution by 2070. Changes in total species richness vary over the state, with large losses of species in some “hotspots” of vulnerability. Differences in distributional shifts among species will change species co-occurrences, creating spatial variation in similarities between current and future assemblages. We use these analyses to consider how assumptions can be addressed and uncertainties reduced. SDMs can provide a useful way to incorporate future conditions into conservation and management practices and decisions, but the uncertainties of model projections must be balanced with the risks of taking the wrong actions or the costs of inaction. Doing this will require that the sources and magnitudes of uncertainty are documented, and that conservationists and resource managers be willing to act despite the uncertainties. The alternative, of ignoring the future, is not an option.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0901639106

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 7 references

Cited by

See all 966

Metadata

Authors
Wiens, J. A., Stralberg, D., Jongsomjit, D., Howell, C. A., & Snyder, M. A.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2009-11-17
Volume
106
Issue
supplement_2
Pages
19729-19736
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2070750558
Cited by
966
References
7
FWCI
22.31
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, models, and climate change: Assessing the assumptions and uncertainties. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0901639106
The paper
Wiens, J. A., Stralberg, D., Jongsomjit, D., Howell, C. A., & Snyder, M. A. (2009). Niches, models, and climate change: Assessing the assumptions and uncertainties. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0901639106

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.