The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Predicting species distributions for conservation decisions
Open accessAbstract
Species distribution models (SDMs) are increasingly proposed to support conservation decision making. However, evidence of SDMs supporting solutions for on‐ground conservation problems is still scarce in the scientific literature. Here, we show that successful examples exist but are still largely hidden in the grey literature, and thus less accessible for analysis and learning. Furthermore, the decision framework within which SDMs are used is rarely made explicit. Using case studies from biological invasions, identification of critical habitats, reserve selection and translocation of endangered species, we propose that SDMs may be tailored to suit a range of decision‐making contexts when used within a structured and transparent decision‐making process. To construct appropriate SDMs to more effectively guide conservation actions, modellers need to better understand the decision process, and decision makers need to provide feedback to modellers regarding the actual use of SDMs to support conservation decisions. This could be facilitated by individuals or institutions playing the role of ‘translators’ between modellers and decision makers. We encourage species distribution modellers to get involved in real decision‐making processes that will benefit from their technical input; this strategy has the potential to better bridge theory and practice, and contribute to improve both scientific knowledge and conservation outcomes.
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
Structured Decision Making: A Practical Guide to Environmental Management Choices
Gregory, R., Failing, L., Harstone, M., Long, G., McDaniels, T., & Ohlson, D. (2012) · doi:10.1002/9781444398557 · Cited by 807
Minimizing the cost of environmental management decisions by optimizing statistical thresholds
Field, S. A., Tyre, A. J., Jonzén, N., Rhodes, J. R., & Possingham, H. P. (2004) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00625.x · Cited by 236
Self-citation
Cited by
Valavi, R., Guillera‐Arroita, G., Lahoz‐Monfort, J. J., & Elith, J. (2022) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.1002/ecm.1486 · Cited by 830
Self-citationFourcade, Y., Besnard, A. G., & Secondi, J. (2018) · Global Ecology and Biogeography · doi:10.1111/geb.12684 · Cited by 500
Northrup, J. M., Vander Wal, E., Bonar, M., Fieberg, J., Laforge, M. P., Leclerc, M., Prokopenko, C. M., & Gerber, B. D. (2022) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1002/eap.2470 · Cited by 227
Bouchet, P. J., & Meeuwig, J. J. (2015) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1890/es14-00380.1 · Cited by 59
Large language models overcome the challenges of unstructured text data in ecology
Castro, A., Pinto, J., Reino, L., Pipek, P., & Capinha, C. (2024) · Ecological Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ecoinf.2024.102742 · Cited by 52
Spiers, J. A., Oatham, M. P., Rostant, L. V., & Farrell, A. D. (2018) · Biodiversity and Conservation · doi:10.1007/s10531-018-1578-y · Cited by 51
Rödder, D., Nekum, S., Cord, A. F., & Engler, J. O. (2016) · Environmental Management · doi:10.1007/s00267-016-0698-y · Cited by 21
Aximoff, I., Carvalho, W. D., Romero, D., Esbérard, C. E. L., Guerrero, J. C., & Rosalino, L. M. (2020) · Mammalian Biology · doi:10.1007/s42991-020-00017-x · Cited by 16
Medina Madariaga, G., Nguyen, H. H., Kiesel, J., Peters, K., Feld, C. K., Jaehnig, S. C., & Cambas, Y. T. (2024) · doi:10.1101/2024.05.28.596146 · Cited by 1
Medina-Madariaga, G., Nguyen, H. H., Kiesel, J., Peters, K., Feld, C. K., Jähnig, S. C., & Torres-Cambas, Y. (2025) · Ecological Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ecoinf.2025.103395 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Guisan, A., Tingley, R., Baumgartner, J. B., Naujokaitis‐Lewis, I., Sutcliffe, P. R., Tulloch, A. I. T., Regan, T. J., Brotons, L., McDonald‐Madden, E., Mantyka‐Pringle, C., Martin, T. G., Rhodes, J. R., Maggini, R., Setterfield, S. A., Elith, J., Schwartz, M. W., Wintle, B. A., Broennimann, O., Austin, M., Ferrier, S., Kearney, M. R., Possingham, H. P., & Buckley, Y. M.
- Venue
- Ecology Letters
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-10-17
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1424-1435
- ISSN
- 1461-023X (ISSN-L)
- 1461-0248
- OpenAlex
- W2127367934
- Cited by
- 2,068
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 55.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
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.