Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 657

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Making better biogeographical predictions of species’ distributions

Open access
GUISAN, ANTOINE, LEHMANN, ANTHONY, FERRIER, SIMON, AUSTIN, MIKE, OVERTON, JACOB MC. C., ASPINALL, RICHARD, HASTIE, TREVOR·2006·Journal of Applied Ecology

Abstract

Summary: Biogeographical models of species’ distributions are essential tools for assessing impacts of changing environmental conditions on natural communities and ecosystems. Practitioners need more reliable predictions to integrate into conservation planning (e.g. reserve design and management). Most models still largely ignore or inappropriately take into account important features of species’ distributions, such as spatial autocorrelation, dispersal and migration, biotic and environmental interactions. Whether distributions of natural communities or ecosystems are better modelled by assembling individual species’ predictions in a bottom‐up approach or modelled as collective entities is another important issue. An international workshop was organized to address these issues. We discuss more specifically six issues in a methodological framework for generalized regression: (i) links with ecological theory; (ii) optimal use of existing data and artificially generated data; (iii) incorporating spatial context; (iv) integrating ecological and environmental interactions; (v) assessing prediction errors and uncertainties; and (vi) predicting distributions of communities or collective properties of biodiversity. Synthesis and applications. Better predictions of the effects of impacts on biological communities and ecosystems can emerge only from more robust species’ distribution models and better documentation of the uncertainty associated with these models. An improved understanding of causes of species’ distributions, especially at their range limits, as well as of ecological assembly rules and ecosystem functioning, is necessary if further progress is to be made. A better collaborative effort between theoretical and functional ecologists, ecological modellers and statisticians is required to reach these goals.

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.1365-2664.2006.01164.x

Cites

2 of 2 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

Cited by

See all 657

Metadata

Authors
GUISAN, A., LEHMANN, A., FERRIER, S., AUSTIN, M., OVERTON, J. M. C., ASPINALL, R., & HASTIE, T.
Venue
Journal of Applied Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-05-12
Volume
43
Issue
3
Pages
386-392
ISSN
  • 0021-8901 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2664
OpenAlex
W2118072459
Cited by
657
References
2
FWCI
26.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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.