Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 171

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

Di Marco, Moreno, Santini, Luca·2015·Global Change Biology

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/gcb.12834

Cites

11 of 11 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

Show all 11 references

Cited by

See all 171

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.