Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 743

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A framework for delineating biogeographical regions based on species distributions

Kreft, Holger, Jetz, Walter·2010·Journal of Biogeography

Abstract

Aim Biogeographical regionalizations, such as zoogeographical regions, floristic kingdoms or ecoregions, represent categorizations central to many basic and applied questions in biogeography, ecology, evolution and conservation. Traditionally established by experts based on qualitative evidence, the lack of transparency and quantitative support has set constraints on their utility. The recent availability of global species range maps, novel multivariate techniques and enhanced computational power now enable a quantitative scrutiny and extension of biogeographical regionalizations that will facilitate new and more rigorous uses. In this paper we develop and illustrate a methodological roadmap for species‐level biogeographical regionalizations at the global scale and apply it to mammals. Location Global. Methods We explore the relative usefulness of ordination and clustering methods and validation techniques. The performance of nine different clustering algorithms is tested at different taxonomic levels. The grain of regionalization (i.e. the number of clusters) will usually be driven by the purpose of the study, but we present several approaches that provide guidance. Results Non‐metric multidimensional scaling offers a valuable first step in identifying and illustrating biogeographical transition zones. For the clustering of regions, the nine different hierarchical clustering methods varied greatly in utility, with UPGMA (unweighted pair‐group method using arithmetic averages) agglomerative hierarchical clustering having consistently the best performance. The UPGMA approach allows a tree‐like phenetic representation of the relative distances of regions and can be applied at different levels of taxonomic resolution. We find that the new quantitative biogeographical regions exhibit both striking similarities to and differences from the classic primary geographical divisions of the world’s biota. Specifically, our results provide evidence that the Sahara, northern Africa, the Arabian Peninsula and parts of the Middle East should be regarded as part of the Afrotropics. Further, the position of the New Guinean continental shelf, Lydekker’s Line, is supported as an appropriate border to separate the Oriental and Australian regions. Main conclusions We propose that this sort of new, quantitative delineation and relationship assessment across taxonomic and geographical grains is likely to offer opportunities for more rigorous inference in historical and ecological biogeography and conservation.

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.1365-2699.2010.02375.x

Cites

7 of 7 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 7 references

Cited by

See all 743

Metadata

Authors
Kreft, H., & Jetz, W.
Venue
Journal of Biogeography
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-07-20
Volume
37
Issue
11
Pages
2029-2053
ISSN
  • 0305-0270 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2699
OpenAlex
W1607656678
Cited by
743
References
7
FWCI
23.85
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: A framework for delineating biogeographical regions based on species distributions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2010.02375.x
The paper
Kreft, H., & Jetz, W. (2010). A framework for delineating biogeographical regions based on species distributions. Journal of Biogeography. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2010.02375.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.