Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 191

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Spatial predictions at the community level: from current approaches to future frameworks: Methods for community-level spatial predictions

D'Amen, Manuela, Rahbek, Carsten, Zimmermann, Niklaus E., Guisan, Antoine·2017·Biological Reviews

Abstract

A fundamental goal of ecological research is to understand and model how processes generate patterns so that if conditions change, changes in the patterns can be predicted. Different approaches have been proposed for modelling species assemblage, but their use to predict spatial patterns of species richness and other community attributes over a range of spatial and temporal scales remains challenging. Different methods emphasize different processes of structuring communities and different goals. In this review, we focus on models that were developed for generating spatially explicit predictions of communities, with a particular focus on species richness, composition, relative abundance and related attributes. We first briefly describe the concepts and theories that span the different drivers of species assembly. A combination of abiotic processes and biotic mechanisms are thought to influence the community assembly process. In this review, we describe four categories of drivers: (i) historical and evolutionary, (ii) environmental, (iii) biotic, and (iv) stochastic. We discuss the different modelling approaches proposed or applied at the community level and examine them from different standpoints, i.e. the theoretical bases, the drivers included, the source data, and the expected outputs, with special emphasis on conservation needs under climate change. We also highlight the most promising novelties, possible shortcomings, and potential extensions of existing methods. Finally, we present new approaches to model and predict species assemblages by reviewing promising 'integrative frameworks' and views that seek to incorporate all drivers of community assembly into a unique modelling workflow. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these new solutions and how they may hasten progress in community-level modelling.

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 · 10.1111/brv.12222

Cites

11 of 11 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 11 references

Cited by

See all 191

Metadata

Authors
D'Amen, M., Rahbek, C., Zimmermann, N. E., & Guisan, A.
Venue
Biological Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-10-01
Volume
92
Issue
1
Pages
169-187
ISSN
  • 0006-3231 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-7931
OpenAlex
W1940953808
Cited by
191
References
11
FWCI
1.11
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: Spatial predictions at the community level: from current approaches to future frameworks: Methods for community-level spatial predictions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/brv.12222
The paper
D'Amen, M., Rahbek, C., Zimmermann, N. E., & Guisan, A. (2017). Spatial predictions at the community level: from current approaches to future frameworks: Methods for community-level spatial predictions. Biological Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12222

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.