Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 245

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Choice of predictor variables as a source of uncertainty in continental-scale species distribution modelling under climate change: Predictor uncertainty in species distribution models

Synes, Nicholas W., Osborne, Patrick E.·2011·Global Ecology and Biogeography

Abstract

Aim Species distribution modelling is commonly used to guide future conservation policies in the light of potential climate change. However, arbitrary decisions during the model-building process can affect predictions and contribute to uncertainty about where suitable climate space will exist. For many species, the key climatic factors limiting distributions are unknown. This paper assesses the uncertainty generated by using different climate predictor variable sets for modelling the impacts of climate change. Location Europe, 10° W to 50° E and 30° N to 60° N. Methods Using 1453 presence pixels at 30 arcsec resolution for the great bustard (Otis tarda), predictions of future distribution were made based on two emissions scenarios, three general climate models and 26 sets of predictor variables. Twenty-six current models were created, and 156 for both 2050 and 2080. Map comparison techniques were used to compare predictions in terms of the quantity and the location of presences (map comparison kappa, MCK) and using a range change index (RCI). Generalized linear models (GLMs) were used to partition explained deviance in MCK and RCI among sources of uncertainty. Results The 26 different variable sets achieved high values of AUC (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) and yet introduced substantial variation into maps of current distribution. Differences between maps were even greater when distributions were projected into the future. Some 64–78% of the variation between future maps was attributable to choice of predictor variable set alone. Choice of general climate model and emissions scenario contributed a maximum of 15% variation and their order of importance differed for MCK and RCI. Main conclusions Generalized variable sets produce an unmanageable level of uncertainty in species distribution models which cannot be ignored. The use of sound ecological theory and statistical methods to check predictor variables can reduce this uncertainty, but our knowledge of species may be too limited to make more than arbitrary choices. When all sources of modelling uncertainty are considered together, it is doubtful whether ensemble methods offer an adequate solution. Future studies should explicitly acknowledge uncertainty due to arbitrary choices in the model-building process and develop ways to convey the results to decision-makers.

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.1466-8238.2010.00635.x

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 245

Metadata

Authors
Synes, N. W., & Osborne, P. E.
Venue
Global Ecology and Biogeography
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-02-17
Volume
20
Issue
6
Pages
904-914
ISSN
1466-822X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1504194060
Cited by
245
References
1
FWCI
9.54
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: Choice of predictor variables as a source of uncertainty in continental-scale species distribution modelling under climate change: Predictor uncertainty in species distribution models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00635.x
The paper
Synes, N. W., & Osborne, P. E. (2011). Choice of predictor variables as a source of uncertainty in continental-scale species distribution modelling under climate change: Predictor uncertainty in species distribution models. Global Ecology and Biogeography. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00635.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.