The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The impact of proxy-based methods on mapping the distribution of ecosystem services
Open accessAbstract
1. An increasing number of studies are examining the distribution and congruence of ecosystem services, often with the goal of identifying areas that will provide multiple ecosystem service ‘hotspots’. However, there is a paucity of data on most ecosystem services, so proxies (e.g. estimates of a service for a particular land cover type) are frequently used to map their distribution. To date, there has been little attempt to quantify the effects of using proxies on distribution maps of ecosystem services, despite the potentially large errors associated with such data sets. 2. Here, we provide the first study examining the effects of using proxies on ecosystem service maps and the degree of spatial congruence of these maps with primary data, using England as a case study. 3. We show that land cover based proxies provide a poor fit to primary data surfaces for biodiversity, recreation and carbon storage, and that correlations between ecosystem services change depending on whether primary or proxy data are used for the analyses. 4. The poor fit of proxies to primary data was also evident when we selected hotspots of single ecosystem services, and consistency between raw and modelled surfaces was extremely low when considering the locations that were coincident hotspots for multiple services. 5. Synthesis and applications. Proxies may be suitable for identifying broad-scale trends in ecosystem services, but even relatively good proxies are likely to be unsuitable for identifying hotspots or priority areas for multiple services.
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
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2025) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 352,181
The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital
Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., et al. (1997) · Nature · doi:10.1038/387253a0 · Cited by 22,585
Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis
Assessment, M. E. (2005) · Island Press · doi:10.5281/zenodo.18167309 · Cited by 10,665
Wiens, J. A. (1989) · Functional Ecology · doi:10.2307/2389612 · Cited by 3,689
Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, D., Chan, K. M., Daily, G. C., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P. M., et al. (2009) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1890/080023 · Cited by 2,389 · cited 3×
“ecosystem service distributions and tradeoffs in the face of climate change are beginning to appear (e.g. Metzger et al. 2006; Nelson et al. 2009).”
BackgroundSpatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services
Hein, L., van Koppen, K., de Groot, R. S., & van Ierland, E. C. (2006) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.005 · Cited by 1,291
Global hotspots of species richness are not congruent with endemism or threat
Orme, C. D. L., Davies, R. G., Burgess, M., Eigenbrod, F., Pickup, N., Olson, V. A., Webster, A. J., Ding, T.-S., Rasmussen, P. C., Ridgely, R. S., et al. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature03850 · Cited by 1,216
Self-citationConservation Planning for Ecosystem Services
Chan, K. M. A., Shaw, M. R., Cameron, D. R., Underwood, E. C., & Daily, G. C. (2006) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040379 · Cited by 1,180
Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities
Naidoo, R., Balmford, A., Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Green, R. E., Lehner, B., Malcolm, T. R., & Ricketts, T. H. (2008) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0707823105 · Cited by 1,048
Ecosystem services: From theory to implementation
Daily, G. C., & Matson, P. A. (2008) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0804960105 · Cited by 852
Cited by
Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union
Maes, J., Egoh, B., Willemen, L., Liquete, C., Vihervaara, P., Schägner, J. P., Grizzetti, B., Drakou, E. G., Notte, A. L., Zulian, G., et al. (2012) · Ecosystem Services · doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.06.004 · Cited by 939
Soil “ecosystem” services and natural capital: critical appraisal of research on uncertain ground
Baveye, P. C., Baveye, J., & Gowdy, J. (2016) · Frontiers in Environmental Science · doi:10.3389/fenvs.2016.00041 · Cited by 446
Challenges for land system science
Rounsevell, M. D. A., Pedroli, B., Erb, K.-H., Gramberger, M., Busck, A. G., Haberl, H., Kristensen, S., Kuemmerle, T., Lavorel, S., Lindner, M., et al. (2012) · Land Use Policy · doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.01.007 · Cited by 393
Remote sensing of ecosystem services: A systematic review
de Araujo Barbosa, C. C., Atkinson, P. M., & Dearing, J. A. (2015) · Ecological Indicators · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.01.007 · Cited by 344
Are ecosystem services adequately quantified?
Boerema, A., Rebelo, A. J., Bodi, M. B., Esler, K. J., & Meire, P. (2017) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12696 · Cited by 283
Metadata
- Authors
- Eigenbrod, F., Armsworth, P. R., Anderson, B. J., Heinemeyer, A., Gillings, S., Roy, D. B., Thomas, C. D., & Gaston, K. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-04
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 377-385
- ISSN
- 0021-8901 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2664
- OpenAlex
- W2039756511
- Cited by
- 503
- References
- 36
- FWCI
- 19.43
- 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: The impact of proxy-based methods on mapping the distribution of ecosystem services. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01777.x
- The paper
- Eigenbrod, F., Armsworth, P. R., Anderson, B. J., Heinemeyer, A., Gillings, S., Roy, D. B., Thomas, C. D., & Gaston, K. J. (2010). The impact of proxy-based methods on mapping the distribution of ecosystem services. Journal of Applied Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01777.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.
