Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 231

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Benchmarking novel approaches for modelling species range dynamics

Open access
Zurell, Damaris, Thuiller, Wilfried, Pagel, Jörn, Cabral, Juliano S., Münkemüller, Tamara, Gravel, Dominique, Dullinger, Stefan, Normand, Signe, Schiffers, Katja H., Moore, Kara A., Zimmermann, Niklaus E.·2016·Global Change Biology

Abstract

Increasing biodiversity loss due to climate change is one of the most vital challenges of the 21st century. To anticipate and mitigate biodiversity loss, models are needed that reliably project species’ range dynamics and extinction risks. Recently, several new approaches to model range dynamics have been developed to supplement correlative species distribution models (SDM s), but applications clearly lag behind model development. Indeed, no comparative analysis has been performed to evaluate their performance. Here, we build on process‐based, simulated data for benchmarking five range (dynamic) models of varying complexity including classical SDM s, SDM s coupled with simple dispersal or more complex population dynamic models (SDM hybrids), and a hierarchical Bayesian process‐based dynamic range model (DRM). We specifically test the effects of demographic and community processes on model predictive performance. Under current climate, DRM s performed best, although only marginally. Under climate change, predictive performance varied considerably, with no clear winners. Yet, all range dynamic models improved predictions under climate change substantially compared to purely correlative SDM s, and the population dynamic models also predicted reasonable extinction risks for most scenarios. When benchmarking data were simulated with more complex demographic and community processes, simple SDM hybrids including only dispersal often proved most reliable. Finally, we found that structural decisions during model building can have great impact on model accuracy, but prior system knowledge on important processes can reduce these uncertainties considerably. Our results reassure the clear merit in using dynamic approaches for modelling species’ response to climate change but also emphasize several needs for further model and data improvement. We propose and discuss perspectives for improving range projections through combination of multiple models and for making these approaches operational for large numbers of species.

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.13251

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 231

Metadata

Authors
Zurell, D., Thuiller, W., Pagel, J., Cabral, J. S., Münkemüller, T., Gravel, D., Dullinger, S., Normand, S., Schiffers, K. H., Moore, K. A., & Zimmermann, N. E.
Venue
Global Change Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-05-09
Volume
22
Issue
8
Pages
2651-2664
ISSN
  • 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2486
OpenAlex
W2286748342
Cited by
231
References
1
FWCI
15.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Benchmarking novel approaches for modelling species range dynamics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/gcb.13251
The paper
Zurell, D., Thuiller, W., Pagel, J., Cabral, J. S., Münkemüller, T., Gravel, D., Dullinger, S., Normand, S., Schiffers, K. H., Moore, K. A., & Zimmermann, N. E. (2016). Benchmarking novel approaches for modelling species range dynamics. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13251

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.