The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The ability of climate envelope models to predict the effect of climate change on species distributions
Abstract
Climate envelope models (CEMs) have been used to predict the distribution of species under current, past, and future climatic conditions by inferring a species' environmental requirements from localities where it is currently known to occur. CEMs can be evaluated for their ability to predict current species distributions but it is unclear whether models that are successful in predicting current distributions are equally successful in predicting distributions under different climates (i.e. different regions or time periods). We evaluated the ability of CEMs to predict species distributions under different climates by comparing their predictions with those obtained with a mechanistic model (MM). In an MM the distribution of a species is modeled based on knowledge of a species' physiology. The potential distributions of 100 plant species were modeled with an MM for current conditions, a past climate reconstruction (21 000 years before present) and a future climate projection (double preindustrial CO 2 conditions). Point localities extracted from the currently suitable area according to the MM were used to predict current, future, and past distributions with four CEMs covering a broad range of statistical approaches: Bioclim (percentile distributions), Domain (distance metric), GAM (general additive modeling), and Maxent (maximum entropy). Domain performed very poorly, strongly underestimating range sizes for past or future conditions. Maxent and GAM performed as well under current climates as under past and future climates. Bioclim slightly underestimated range sizes but the predicted ranges overlapped more with the ranges predicted with the MM than those predicted with GAM did. Ranges predicted with Maxent overlapped most with those produced with the MMs, but compared with the ranges predicted with GAM they were more variable and sometimes much too large. Our results suggest that some CEMs can indeed be used to predict species distributions under climate change, but individual modeling approaches should be validated for this purpose, and model choice could be made dependent on the purpose of a particular study.
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
A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems
Parmesan, C., & Yohe, G. (2003) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature01286 · Cited by 11,265
A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models
FIELDING, A. H., & BELL, J. F. (1997) · Environmental Conservation · doi:10.1017/s0376892997000088 · Cited by 6,956
Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants
Root, T. L., Price, J. T., Hall, K. R., Schneider, S. H., Rosenzweig, C., & Pounds, J. A. (2003) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature01333 · Cited by 4,774
Pearson, R. G., & Dawson, T. P. (2003) · Global Ecology and Biogeography · doi:10.1046/j.1466-822x.2003.00042.x · Cited by 4,252
Equilibrium of species’ distributions with climate
Araújo, M. B., & Pearson, R. G. (2005) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.2005.0906-7590.04253.x · Cited by 665
Cited by
The art of modelling range-shifting species: The art of modelling range-shifting species
Elith, J., Kearney, M., & Phillips, S. (2010) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.2041-210x.2010.00036.x · Cited by 2,813
Effects of sample size on the performance of species distribution models
Wisz, M. S., Hijmans, R. J., Li, J., Peterson, A. T., Graham, C. H., Guisan, A., & NCEAS Predicting Species Distributions Working Group (2008) · Diversity and Distributions · doi:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2008.00482.x · Cited by 2,514
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
Climate change and disruptions to global fire activity
Moritz, M. A., Parisien, M.-A., Batllori, E., Krawchuk, M. A., Van Dorn, J., Ganz, D. J., & Hayhoe, K. (2012) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1890/es11-00345.1 · Cited by 959
Fourcade, Y., Besnard, A. G., & Secondi, J. (2018) · Global Ecology and Biogeography · doi:10.1111/geb.12684 · Cited by 500
Environmental controls on the distribution of wildfire at multiple spatial scales
Parisien, M.-A., & Moritz, M. A. (2009) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.1890/07-1289.1 · Cited by 383
Predicting Distributions of Invasive Species
Elith, J. (2017) · Invasive Species · doi:10.1017/9781139019606.006 · Cited by 106
Paleodistribution modeling in archaeology and paleoanthropology
Franklin, J., Potts, A. J., Fisher, E. C., Cowling, R. M., & Marean, C. W. (2015) · Quaternary Science Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2014.12.015 · Cited by 71
Hamilton, C. M., Bateman, B. L., Gorzo, J. M., Reid, B., Thogmartin, W. E., Peery, M. Z., Heglund, P. J., Radeloff, V. C., & Pidgeon, A. M. (2018) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2018.03.026 · Cited by 24
Cartogramming uncertainty in species distribution models: A Bayesian approach
Rocchini, D., Marcantonio, M., Arhonditsis, G., Cacciato, A. L., Hauffe, H. C., & He, K. S. (2019) · Ecological Complexity · doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2019.04.002 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- HIJMANS, R. J., & GRAHAM, C. H.
- Venue
- Global Change Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-10-20
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 2272-2281
- ISSN
- 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2486
- OpenAlex
- W2131687730
- Cited by
- 1,179
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 17.60
- 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
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.