The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Human pressures predict species’ geographic range size better than biological traits
Abstract
Geographic range size is the manifestation of complex interactions between intrinsic species traits and extrinsic environmental conditions. It is also a fundamental ecological attribute of species and a key extinction risk correlate. Past research has primarily focused on the role of biological and environmental predictors of range size, but macroecological patterns can also be distorted by human activities. Here, we analyse the role of extrinsic (biogeography, habitat state, climate, human pressure) and intrinsic (biology) variables in predicting range size of the world's terrestrial mammals. In particular, our aim is to compare the predictive ability of human pressure vs. species biology. We evaluated the ability of 19 intrinsic and extrinsic variables in predicting range size for 4867 terrestrial mammals. We repeated the analyses after excluding restricted‐range species and performed separate analyses for species in different biogeographic realms and taxonomic groups. Our model had high predictive ability and showed that climatic variables and human pressures are the most influential predictors of range size. Interestingly, human pressures predict current geographic range size better than biological traits. These findings were confirmed when repeating the analyses on large‐ranged species, individual biogeographic regions and individual taxonomic groups. Climatic and human impacts have determined the extinction of mammal species in the past and are the main factors shaping the present distribution of mammals. These factors also affect other vertebrate groups globally, and their influence on range size may be similar as well. Measuring climatic and human variables can allow to obtain approximate range size estimations for data‐deficient and newly discovered species (e.g. hundreds of mammal species worldwide). Our results support the need for a more careful consideration of the role of climate change and human impact – as opposed to species biological characteristics – in shaping species distribution ranges.
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
High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change
Hansen, M. C., Potapov, P. V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S. A., Tyukavina, A., Thau, D., Stehman, S. V., Goetz, S. J., Loveland, T. R., et al. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1244693 · Cited by 11,704
MissForest—Non-parametric missing value imputation for mixed-type data
Stekhoven, D. J., & Bühlmann, P. (2012) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btr597 · Cited by 6,156
Random forests for classification in ecology
Cutler, D. R., Edwards, T. C., Beard, K. H., Cutler, A., Hess, K. T., Gibson, J., & Lawler, J. J. (2007) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/07-0539.1 · Cited by 4,950
Defaunation in the Anthropocene
Dirzo, R., Young, H. S., Galetti, M., Ceballos, G., Isaac, N. J. B., & Collen, B. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1251817 · Cited by 4,474 · cited 1×
“Climate and human impact have also been the main drivers of biodiversity loss in recent centuries, with potentially drastic effects on global ecosystem functioning and associated services (Dirzo et al., 2014).”
BackgroundPearson, R. G., & Dawson, T. P. (2003) · Global Ecology and Biogeography · doi:10.1046/j.1466-822x.2003.00042.x · Cited by 4,252
Predicting extinction risk in declining species
Purvis, A., Gittleman, J. L., Cowlishaw, G., & Mace, G. M. (2000) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2000.1234 · Cited by 1,768
The Status of the World's Land and Marine Mammals: Diversity, Threat, and Knowledge
Schipper, J., Chanson, J. S., Chiozza, F., Cox, N. A., Hoffmann, M., Katariya, V., Lamoreux, J., Rodrigues, A. S. L., Stuart, S. N., Temple, H. J., et al. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1165115 · Cited by 1,534
The Impact of Conservation on the Status of the World’s Vertebrates
Hoffmann, M., Hilton-Taylor, C., Angulo, A., Böhm, M., Brooks, T. M., Butchart, S. H. M., Carpenter, K. E., Chanson, J., Collen, B., Cox, N. A., et al. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1194442 · Cited by 1,515
A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets
Tittensor, D. P., Walpole, M., Hill, S. L. L., Boyce, D. G., Britten, G. L., Burgess, N. D., Butchart, S. H. M., Leadley, P. W., Regan, E. C., Alkemade, R., et al. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1257484 · Cited by 1,227
Self-citationMammal Population Losses and the Extinction Crisis
Ceballos, G., & Ehrlich, P. R. (2002) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1069349 · Cited by 968
Cited by
Global terrestrial Human Footprint maps for 1993 and 2009
Venter, O., Sanderson, E. W., Magrach, A., Allan, J. R., Beher, J., Jones, K. R., Possingham, H. P., Laurance, W. F., Wood, P., Fekete, B. M., et al. (2016) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.67 · Cited by 837
Global correlates of range contractions and expansions in terrestrial mammals
Pacifici, M., Rondinini, C., Rhodes, J. R., Burbidge, A. A., Cristiano, A., Watson, J. E. M., Woinarski, J. C. Z., & Di Marco, M. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-16684-w · Cited by 197
Metadata
- Authors
- Di Marco, M., & Santini, L.
- Venue
- Global Change Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-02-20
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 2169-2178
- ISSN
- 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2486
- OpenAlex
- W2098288807
- Cited by
- 171
- References
- 11
- FWCI
- 7.39
- 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: Human pressures predict species’ geographic range size better than biological traits. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/gcb.12834
- The paper
- Di Marco, M., & Santini, L. (2015). Human pressures predict species’ geographic range size better than biological traits. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12834
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.