The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Equilibrium or not? Modelling potential distribution of invasive species in different stages of invasion
Abstract
Aim The assumption of equilibrium between organisms and their environment is a standard working postulate in species distribution models (SDMs). However, this assumption is typically violated in models of biological invasions where range expansions are highly constrained by dispersal and colonization processes. Here, we examined how stage of invasion affects the extent to which occurrence data represent the ecological niche of organisms and, in turn, influences spatial prediction of species’ potential distributions. Location Six ecoregions in western Oregon, USA. Methods We compiled occurrence data from 697 field plots collected over a 9‐year period (2001–09) of monitoring the spread of invasive forest pathogen Phytophthora ramorum. Using these data, we applied ecological‐niche factor analysis to calibrate models of potential distribution across different years of colonization. We accounted for natural variation and uncertainties in model evaluation by further investigating three hypothetical scenarios of varying equilibrium in a simulated virtual species, for which the ‘true’ potential distribution was known. Results We confirm our hypothesis that SDMs calibrated in early stages of invasion are less accurate than models calibrated under scenarios closer to equilibrium. SDMs that are developed in early stages of invasion tend to underpredict the potential range compared to models that are built in later stages of invasion. Main conclusions A full environmental niche of invasive species cannot be effectively captured with data from a realized distribution that is restricted by processes preventing full occupancy of suitable habitats. If SDMs are to be used effectively in conservation and management, stage of invasion needs to be considered to avoid underestimation of habitats at risk of invasion.
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
Pearson, R. G., & Dawson, T. P. (2003) · Global Ecology and Biogeography · doi:10.1046/j.1466-822x.2003.00042.x · Cited by 4,252
The art of modelling range-shifting species: The art of modelling range-shifting species
Elith, J., Kearney, M., & Phillips, S. (2010) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.2041-210x.2010.00036.x · Cited by 2,813
Equilibrium of species’ distributions with climate
Araújo, M. B., & Pearson, R. G. (2005) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.2005.0906-7590.04253.x · Cited by 665
Cited by
Shabani, F., Kumar, L., & Ahmadi, M. (2016) · Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1002/ece3.2332 · Cited by 319
Modeling the Potential Dispersal of Asian Longhorned Beetle Using Circuit Theory
Elmes, A., Rogan, J., Williams, C., Ratick, S., & Nowak, D. (2019) · The Professional Geographer · doi:10.1080/00330124.2019.1611458 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Václavík, T., & Meentemeyer, R. K.
- Venue
- Diversity and Distributions
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-10-25
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 73-83
- ISSN
- 0967-9952 (ISSN-L)
- 1366-9516
- 1472-4642
- OpenAlex
- W1570307721
- Cited by
- 323
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 11.26
- 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: Equilibrium or not? Modelling potential distribution of invasive species in different stages of invasion. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00854.x
- The paper
- Václavík, T., & Meentemeyer, R. K. (2012). Equilibrium or not? Modelling potential distribution of invasive species in different stages of invasion. Diversity and Distributions. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00854.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.