The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Modelling of species distributions, range dynamics and communities under imperfect detection: advances, challenges and opportunities
Abstract
Building useful models of species distributions requires attention to several important issues, one being imperfect detection of species. Data sets of species detections are likely to suffer from false absence records. Depending on the type of survey, false positive records can also be a problem. Disregarding these observation errors may lead to important biases in model estimation as well as overconfidence about precision. The severity of the problem depends on the intensity of these errors and how they correlate with environmental characteristics (e.g. where species detectability strongly depends on habitat features). A powerful modelling framework that accounts for imperfect detection in the modelling of species distributions has developed in the last 10–15 yr. Fundamental to this framework is that data must be collected in a way that is informative about the observation process. For instance, such data can be in the form of multiple detection/non‐detection records obtained from several visits/observers/detection methods at (at least) some of the sites, or from data on times to detection within a survey visit. The framework can extend to studying species’ range dynamics and the modelling of communities, as well as approaches for analysing data on abundance and multiple occupancy states (rather than binary presence/absence). This paper summarizes these modelling advances, discusses evidence about effects of imperfect detection and the difficulties of working with it, and concludes with the current outlook for future research and application of these methods.
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
The Elements of Statistical Learning
Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. (2009) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7 · Cited by 25,970
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
ESTIMATING ABUNDANCE FROM REPEATED PRESENCE–ABSENCE DATA OR POINT COUNTS
Royle, J. A., & Nichols, J. D. (2003) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2003)084[0777:eafrpa]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 1,364
Metadata
- Authors
- Guillera‐Arroita, G.
- Venue
- Ecography
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-08-26
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 281-295
- ISSN
- 0906-7590 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0587
- OpenAlex
- W2464745095
- Cited by
- 426
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 22.43
- 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: Modelling of species distributions, range dynamics and communities under imperfect detection: advances, challenges and opportunities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/ecog.02445
- The paper
- Guillera‐Arroita, G. (2017). Modelling of species distributions, range dynamics and communities under imperfect detection: advances, challenges and opportunities. Ecography. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.02445
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.