Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 708

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

Uncertainty in ensemble forecasting of species distribution

BUISSON, LAËTITIA, THUILLER, WILFRIED, CASAJUS, NICOLAS, LEK, SOVAN, GRENOUILLET, GAËL·2010·Global Change Biology

Abstract

Species distribution modelling has been widely applied in order to assess the potential impacts of climate change on biodiversity. Many methodological decisions, taken during the modelling process and forecasts, may, however, lead to a large variability in the assessment of future impacts. Using measures of species range change and turnover, the potential impacts of climate change on French stream fish species and assemblages were evaluated. Our main focus was to quantify the uncertainty in the projections of these impacts arising from four sources of uncertainty: initial datasets (Data), statistical methods [species distribution models (SDM)], general circulation models (GCM), and gas emission scenarios (GES). Several modalities of the aforementioned uncertainty sources were combined in an ensemble forecasting framework resulting in 8400 different projections. The variance explained by each source was then extracted from this whole ensemble of projections. Overall, SDM contributed to the largest variation in projections, followed by GCM, whose contribution increased over time equalling almost the proportion of variance explained by SDM in 2080. Data and GES had little influence on the variability in projections. Future projections of range change were more consistent for species with a large geographical extent (i.e., distribution along latitudinal or stream gradients) or with restricted environmental requirements (i.e., small thermal or elevation ranges). Variability in projections of turnover was spatially structured at the scale of France, indicating that certain particular geographical areas should be considered with care when projecting the potential impacts of climate change. The results of this study, therefore, emphasized that particular attention should be paid to the use of predictions ensembles resulting from the application of several statistical methods and climate models. Moreover, forecasted impacts of climate change should always be provided with an assessment of their uncertainty, so that management and conservation decisions can be taken in the full knowledge of their reliability.

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/j.1365-2486.2009.02000.x

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

Cited by

See all 708

Metadata

Authors
BUISSON, L., THUILLER, W., CASAJUS, N., LEK, S., & GRENOUILLET, G.
Venue
Global Change Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-02-22
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
1145-1157
ISSN
  • 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2486
OpenAlex
W2128827287
Cited by
708
References
1
FWCI
15.65
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: Uncertainty in ensemble forecasting of species distribution. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.02000.x
The paper
BUISSON, L., THUILLER, W., CASAJUS, N., LEK, S., & GRENOUILLET, G. (2010). Uncertainty in ensemble forecasting of species distribution. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.02000.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.