Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 239

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Predicting spatial patterns of plant species richness: a comparison of direct macroecological and species stacking modelling approaches: Predicting plant species richness

Open access
Dubuis, Anne, Pottier, Julien, Rion, Vanessa, Pellissier, Loïc, Theurillat, Jean-Paul, Guisan, Antoine·2011·Diversity and Distributions

Abstract

Aim This study compares the direct, macroecological approach (MEM) for modelling species richness (SR) with the more recent approach of stacking predictions from individual species distributions (S-SDM). We implemented both approaches on the same dataset and discuss their respective theoretical assumptions, strengths and drawbacks. We also tested how both approaches performed in reproducing observed patterns of SR along an elevational gradient. Location Two study areas in the Alps of Switzerland. Methods We implemented MEM by relating the species counts to environmental predictors with statistical models, assuming a Poisson distribution. S-SDM was implemented by modelling each species distribution individually and then stacking the obtained prediction maps in three different ways – summing binary predictions, summing random draws of binomial trials and summing predicted probabilities – to obtain a final species count. Results The direct MEM approach yields nearly unbiased predictions centred around the observed mean values, but with a lower correlation between predictions and observations, than that achieved by the S-SDM approaches. This method also cannot provide any information on species identity and, thus, community composition. It does, however, accurately reproduce the hump-shaped pattern of SR observed along the elevational gradient. The S-SDM approach summing binary maps can predict individual species and thus communities, but tends to overpredict SR. The two other S-SDM approaches – the summed binomial trials based on predicted probabilities and summed predicted probabilities – do not overpredict richness, but they predict many competing end points of assembly or they lose the individual species predictions, respectively. Furthermore, all S-SDM approaches fail to appropriately reproduce the observed hump-shaped patterns of SR along the elevational gradient. Main conclusions Macroecological approach and S-SDM have complementary strengths. We suggest that both could be used in combination to obtain better SR predictions by following the suggestion of constraining S-SDM by MEM predictions.

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.1472-4642.2011.00792.x

Cites

9 of 9 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 9 references

Cited by

See all 239

Metadata

Authors
Dubuis, A., Pottier, J., Rion, V., Pellissier, L., Theurillat, J.-P., & Guisan, A.
Venue
Diversity and Distributions
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-07-28
Volume
17
Issue
6
Pages
1122-1131
ISSN
  • 0967-9952 (ISSN-L)
  • 1366-9516
OpenAlex
W2000745569
Cited by
239
References
9
FWCI
9.87
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: Predicting spatial patterns of plant species richness: a comparison of direct macroecological and species stacking modelling approaches: Predicting plant species richness. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00792.x
The paper
Dubuis, A., Pottier, J., Rion, V., Pellissier, L., Theurillat, J.-P., & Guisan, A. (2011). Predicting spatial patterns of plant species richness: a comparison of direct macroecological and species stacking modelling approaches: Predicting plant species richness. Diversity and Distributions. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00792.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.