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
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.
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
Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B., & Kent, J. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35002501 · Cited by 31,710
Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems
Diaz, R. J., & Rosenberg, R. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1156401 · Cited by 6,626
Grime, J. P. (1977) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/283244 · Cited by 5,754 · cited 3×
“The conceptual foundation of this framework is extremely appealing and the generality of the formulation is achieved by focusing on trait types that are independent from any particular species within the target group, and can thus be linked directly to the environment (Grime, 1977; Keddy, 1992; McGill et al., 2006; Sh…”
BackgroundPearson, R. G., & Dawson, T. P. (2003) · Global Ecology and Biogeography · doi:10.1046/j.1466-822x.2003.00042.x · Cited by 4,252
The merging of community ecology and phylogenetic biology
Cavender‐Bares, J., Kozak, K. H., Fine, P. V. A., & Kembel, S. W. (2009) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01314.x · Cited by 2,321
The statistics and biology of the species-area relationship
Connor, E. F., & McCoy, E. D. (1979) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/283438 · Cited by 2,313
Fluctuations in the Abundance of a Species considered Mathematically1
VOLTERRA, V. (1926) · Nature · doi:10.1038/118558a0 · Cited by 2,054
Poff, N. L. (1997) · Journal of the North American Benthological Society · doi:10.2307/1468026 · Cited by 1,833
Next‐generation dynamic global vegetation models: learning from community ecology
Scheiter, S., Langan, L., & Higgins, S. I. (2013) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.12210 · Cited by 498
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
Norberg, A., Abrego, N., Blanchet, F. G., Adler, F. R., Anderson, B. J., Anttila, J., Araújo, M. B., Dallas, T., Dunson, D., Elith, J., et al. (2019) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.1002/ecm.1370 · Cited by 573
Self-citationJoint Species Distribution Modelling: With Applications in R
Ovaskainen, O., & Abrego, N. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108591720 · Cited by 394
What we use is not what we know: environmental predictors in plant distribution models
Mod, H. K., Scherrer, D., Luoto, M., & Guisan, A. (2016) · Journal of Vegetation Science · doi:10.1111/jvs.12444 · Cited by 265
Self-citationTesting species assemblage predictions from stacked and joint species distribution models
Zurell, D., Zimmermann, N. E., Gross, H., Baltensweiler, A., Sattler, T., & Wüest, R. O. (2020) · Journal of Biogeography · doi:10.1111/jbi.13608 · Cited by 153
Self-citation
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.