Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 490

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Empirical Analyses of Plant‐Climate Relationships for the Western United States

Rehfeldt, Gerald E., Crookston, Nicholas L., Warwell, Marcus V., Evans, Jeffrey S.·2006·International Journal of Plant Sciences

Abstract

The Random Forests multiple-regression tree was used to model climate profiles of 25 biotic communities of the western United States and nine of their constituent species. Analyses of the communities were based on a gridded sample of ca. 140,000 points, while those for the species used presence‐absence data from ca. 120,000 locations. Independent variables included 35 simple expressions of temperature and precipitation and their interactions. Classification errors for community models averaged 19%, but the errors were reduced by half when adjusted for misalignment between geographic data sets. Errors of omission for species‐specific models approached 0, while errors of commission were less than 9%. Mapped climate profiles of the species were in solid agreement with range maps. Climate variables of most importance for segregating the communities were those that generally differentiate maritime, continental, and monsoonal climates, while those of importance for predicting the occurrence of species varied among species but consistently implicated the periodicity of precipitation and temperature‐precipitation interactions. Projections showed that unmitigated global warming should increase the abundance primarily of the montane forest and grassland community profiles at the expense largely of those of the subalpine, alpine, and tundra communities but also that of the arid woodlands. However, the climate of 47% of the future landscape may be extramural to contemporary community profiles. Effects projected on the spatial distribution of species‐specific profiles were varied, but shifts in space and altitude would be extensive. Species‐specific projections were not necessarily consistent with those of their communities.

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 · 10.1086/507711

Cites

60 of 60 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 60 references

Cited by

See all 490

Metadata

Authors
Rehfeldt, G. E., Crookston, N. L., Warwell, M. V., & Evans, J. S.
Venue
International Journal of Plant Sciences
Published
2006-11
Volume
167
Issue
6
Pages
1123-1150
ISSN
  • 1058-5893 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5315
OpenAlex
W2119138846
Cited by
490
References
60
FWCI
6.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Empirical Analyses of Plant‐Climate Relationships for the Western United States. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/507711
The paper
Rehfeldt, G. E., Crookston, N. L., Warwell, M. V., & Evans, J. S. (2006). Empirical Analyses of Plant‐Climate Relationships for the Western United States. International Journal of Plant Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1086/507711

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.