The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Tradeoffs of different types of species occurrence data for use in systematic conservation planning
Abstract
Data on the occurrence of species are widely used to inform the design of reserve networks. These data contain commission errors (when a species is mistakenly thought to be present) and omission errors (when a species is mistakenly thought to be absent), and the rates of the two types of error are inversely related. Point locality data can minimize commission errors, but those obtained from museum collections are generally sparse, suffer from substantial spatial bias and contain large omission errors. Geographic ranges generate large commission errors because they assume homogenous species distributions. Predicted distribution data make explicit inferences on species occurrence and their commission and omission errors depend on model structure, on the omission of variables that determine species distribution and on data resolution. Omission errors lead to identifying networks of areas for conservation action that are smaller than required and centred on known species occurrences, thus affecting the comprehensiveness, representativeness and efficiency of selected areas. Commission errors lead to selecting areas not relevant to conservation, thus affecting the representativeness and adequacy of reserve networks. Conservation plans should include an estimation of commission and omission errors in underlying species data and explicitly use this information to influence conservation planning outcomes.
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
A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models
FIELDING, A. H., & BELL, J. F. (1997) · Environmental Conservation · doi:10.1017/s0376892997000088 · Cited by 6,956
Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity
Rodrigues, A. S. L., Andelman, S. J., Bakarr, M. I., Boitani, L., Brooks, T. M., Cowling, R. M., Fishpool, L. D. C., da Fonseca, G. A. B., Gaston, K. J., Hoffmann, M., et al. (2004) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature02422 · Cited by 1,525
Self-citation
Cited by
The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection
Pimm, S. L., Jenkins, C. N., Abell, R., Brooks, T. M., Gittleman, J. L., Joppa, L. N., Raven, P. H., Roberts, C. M., & Sexton, J. O. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1246752 · Cited by 3,542
The importance of correcting for sampling bias in MaxEnt species distribution models
Kramer‐Schadt, S., Niedballa, J., Pilgrim, J. D., Schröder, B., Lindenborn, J., Reinfelder, V., Stillfried, M., Heckmann, I., Scharf, A. K., Augeri, D. M., et al. (2013) · Diversity and Distributions · doi:10.1111/ddi.12096 · Cited by 1,321
Global patterns of terrestrial vertebrate diversity and conservation
Jenkins, C. N., Pimm, S. L., & Joppa, L. N. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1302251110 · Cited by 1,093
Predicting the conservation status of data-deficient species
Bland, L. M., Collen, B., Orme, C. D. L., & Bielby, J. (2015) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.12372 · Cited by 364
Metadata
- Authors
- Rondinini, C., Wilson, K. A., Boitani, L., Grantham, H., & Possingham, H. P.
- Venue
- Ecology Letters
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-09-12
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1136-1145
- ISSN
- 1461-023X (ISSN-L)
- 1461-0248
- OpenAlex
- W2116932472
- Cited by
- 516
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 9.95
- 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: Tradeoffs of different types of species occurrence data for use in systematic conservation planning. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00970.x
- The paper
- Rondinini, C., Wilson, K. A., Boitani, L., Grantham, H., & Possingham, H. P. (2006). Tradeoffs of different types of species occurrence data for use in systematic conservation planning. Ecology Letters. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00970.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.