The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effects of restricting environmental range of data to project current and future species distributions
Abstract
We examine the consequences of restricting the range of environmental conditions over which niche‐based models are developed to project potential future distributions of three selected European tree species to assess first, the importance of removing absences beyond species known distributions (“naughty noughts”) and second the importance of capturing the full environmental range of species. We found that restricting the environmental range of data strongly influenced the estimation of response curves, especially towards upper and lower ends of environmental ranges. This induces changes in the probability values towards upper and lower environmental boundaries, leading to more conservative scenarios in terms of changes in distribution projections. Using restricted data analogous to not capturing the fun species’ environmental range, reduces strongly the combinations of environmental conditions under which the models are calibrated, and reduces the applicability of the models for predictive purposes. This may generate unpredictable effects on the tails of the species response curves, yielding spurious projections into the future provided that probability of occurrence is not set to zero outside the environmental limits of the species. Indeed, as the restricted data does not capture the whole of the response curve, projections of future species distributions based of ecological niche modelling may be only valid if niche models are able to approach the complete response curve of environmental predictors.
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
Pearson, R. G., & Dawson, T. P. (2003) · Global Ecology and Biogeography · doi:10.1046/j.1466-822x.2003.00042.x · Cited by 4,252
COMPETITIVE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN TREE SPECIES IN NEW ZEALAND'S OLD-GROWTH INDIGENOUS FORESTS
Leathwick, J. R., & Austin, M. P. (2001) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[2560:cibtsi]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 243
Cited by
Cross‐validation strategies for data with temporal, spatial, hierarchical, or phylogenetic structure
Roberts, D. R., Bahn, V., Ciuti, S., Boyce, M. S., Elith, J., Guillera‐Arroita, G., Hauenstein, S., Lahoz‐Monfort, J. J., Schröder, B., Thuiller, W., et al. (2017) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.02881 · Cited by 3,689
Self-citationFive (or so) challenges for species distribution modelling
Araújo, M. B., & Guisan, A. (2006) · Journal of Biogeography · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2006.01584.x · Cited by 1,901
Self-citationMaking better M axent models of species distributions: complexity, overfitting and evaluation
Radosavljevic, A., & Anderson, R. P. (2014) · Journal of Biogeography · doi:10.1111/jbi.12227 · Cited by 1,723
Fourcade, Y., Engler, J. O., Rödder, D., & Secondi, J. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0097122 · Cited by 1,098
Model‐based uncertainty in species range prediction
Pearson, R. G., Thuiller, W., Araújo, M. B., Martinez‐Meyer, E., Brotons, L., McClean, C., Miles, L., Segurado, P., Dawson, T. P., & Lees, D. C. (2006) · Journal of Biogeography · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2006.01460.x · Cited by 981
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Thuiller, W., Brotons, L., Araújo, M. B., & Lavorel, S.
- Venue
- Ecography
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-03-30
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 165-172
- ISSN
- 0906-7590 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0587
- OpenAlex
- W2110248929
- Cited by
- 609
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 14.14
- 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: Effects of restricting environmental range of data to project current and future species distributions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.0906-7590.2004.03673.x
- The paper
- Thuiller, W., Brotons, L., Araújo, M. B., & Lavorel, S. (2004). Effects of restricting environmental range of data to project current and future species distributions. Ecography. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0906-7590.2004.03673.x
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.