Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 305

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 88 of the 88 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Fauna habitat modelling and mapping: A review and case study in the Lower Hunter Central Coast region of NSW

WINTLE, BRENDAN A., ELITH, JANE, POTTS, JOANNE M.·2005·Austral Ecology

Abstract

Abstract Habitat models are now broadly used in conservation planning on public lands. If implemented correctly, habitat modelling is a transparent and repeatable technique for describing and mapping biodiversity values, and its application in peri‐urban and agricultural landscape planning is likely to expand rapidly. Conservation planning in such landscapes must be robust to the scrutiny that arises when biodiversity constraints are placed on developers and private landholders. A standardized modelling and model evaluation method based on widely accepted techniques will improve the robustness of conservation plans. We review current habitat modelling and model evaluation methods and provide a habitat modelling case study in the New South Wales central coast region that we hope will serve as a methodological template for conservation planners. We make recommendations on modelling methods that are appropriate when presence‐absence and presence‐only survey data are available and provide methodological details and a website with data and training material for modellers. Our aim is to provide practical guidelines that preserve methodological rigour and result in defendable habitat models and maps. The case study was undertaken in a rapidly developing area with substantial biodiversity values under urbanization pressure. Habitat maps for seven priority fauna species were developed using logistic regression models of species‐habitat relationships and a bootstrapping methodology was used to evaluate model predictions. The modelled species were the koala, tiger quoll, squirrel glider, yellow‐bellied glider, masked owl, powerful owl and sooty owl. Models ranked sites adequately in terms of habitat suitability and provided predictions of sufficient reliability for the purpose of identifying preliminary conservation priority areas. However, they are subject to multiple uncertainties and should not be viewed as a completely accurate representation of the distribution of species habitat. We recommend the use of model prediction in an adaptive framework whereby models are iteratively updated and refined as new data become available.

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.1442-9993.2005.01514.x

Cites

88 of 88 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 88 references

Cited by

See all 305

Metadata

Authors
WINTLE, B. A., ELITH, J., & POTTS, J. M.
Venue
Austral Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-10-10
Volume
30
Issue
7
Pages
719-738
ISSN
  • 1442-9985 (ISSN-L)
  • 1442-9993
OpenAlex
W2103198383
Cited by
305
References
88
FWCI
14.99
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: Fauna habitat modelling and mapping: A review and case study in the Lower Hunter Central Coast region of NSW. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1442-9993.2005.01514.x
The paper
WINTLE, B. A., ELITH, J., & POTTS, J. M. (2005). Fauna habitat modelling and mapping: A review and case study in the Lower Hunter Central Coast region of NSW. Austral Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.2005.01514.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.