Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 307

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 84 of the 84 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Predicting the ecological consequences of environmental change: a review of the methods*

Open access
SUTHERLAND, WILLIAM J.·2006·Journal of Applied Ecology

Abstract

Summary: There is a clear need to increase our ability to predict the consequences of environmental change. The seven main approaches that are currently used are: extrapolation, experiments, phenomenological models, game‐theory population models, expert opinion, outcome‐driven modelling and scenarios. Each approach has different strengths and weaknesses. In practice, several approaches are often combined. Adaptive management aimed at testing hypotheses is excellent in principle and widely advocated. In reality, however, it is almost never carried out because the changes in management usually have to be severe in order to bring about detectable changes in a reasonable time, and the political risks of such management are usually considered too high. Game‐theory population models are used to determine population‐level phenomena based upon the decisions individuals make in response to resource depletion, interference, territoriality or rank. This allows predictions to be made regarding responses to novel conditions. The main drawback is that for some models considerable information is required. Much of conservation practice is not based upon evidence. Evidence‐based conservation is the practice of accumulating, reviewing and disseminating evidence with the aim of formulating appropriate management strategies. Evidence‐based medicine revolutionized medical practice and similar opportunities exist to improve conservation practice. Synthesis and applications. The conventional approach of making assumptions and deriving models to make predictions about the consequences of environmental change is often unsatisfactory for complex problems, with considerable uncertainty. Tackling such problems is likely to require greater exploration of techniques such as expert opinion, output‐driven modelling and scenarios.

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.1365-2664.2006.01182.x

Cites

84 of 84 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 84 references

Cited by

See all 307

Metadata

Authors
SUTHERLAND, W. J.
Venue
Journal of Applied Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-06-23
Volume
43
Issue
4
Pages
599-616
ISSN
  • 0021-8901 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2664
OpenAlex
W1516331600
Cited by
307
References
84
FWCI
16.30
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Predicting the ecological consequences of environmental change: a review of the methods*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01182.x
The paper
SUTHERLAND, W. J. (2006). Predicting the ecological consequences of environmental change: a review of the methods*. Journal of Applied Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01182.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.