Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,068

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 access
Guisan, Antoine, Tingley, Reid, Baumgartner, John B., Naujokaitis‐Lewis, Ilona, Sutcliffe, Patricia R., Tulloch, Ayesha I. T., Regan, Tracey J., Brotons, Lluis, McDonald‐Madden, Eve, Mantyka‐Pringle, Chrystal, Martin, Tara G., Rhodes, Jonathan R., Maggini, Ramona, Setterfield, Samantha A., Elith, Jane, Schwartz, Mark W., Wintle, Brendan A., Broennimann, Olivier, Austin, Mike, Ferrier, Simon, Kearney, Michael R., Possingham, Hugh P., Buckley, Yvonne M.·2013·Ecology Letters

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/ele.12189

Cites

2 of 2 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

Cited by

See all 2,068

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.