Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 163

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Static species distribution models in dynamically changing systems: how good can predictions really be?

Zurell, Damaris, Jeltsch, Florian, Dormann, Carsten F., Schröder, Boris·2009·Ecography

Abstract

It is widely acknowledged that species respond to climate change by range shifts. Robust predictions of such changes in species’ distributions are pivotal for conservation planning and policy making, and are thus major challenges in ecological research. Statistical species distribution models (SDMs) have been widely applied in this context, though they remain subject to criticism as they implicitly assume equilibrium, and incorporate neither dispersal, demographic processes nor biotic interactions explicitly. In this study, the effects of transient dynamics and ecological properties and processes on the prediction accuracy of SDMs for climate change projections were tested. A spatially explicit multi‐species dynamic population model was built, incorporating species‐specific and interspecific ecological processes, environmental stochasticity and climate change. Species distributions were sampled in different scenarios, and SDMs were estimated by applying generalised linear models (GLMs) and boosted regression trees (BRTs). Resulting model performances were related to prevailing ecological processes and temporal dynamics. SDM performance varied for different range dynamics. Prediction accuracies decreased when abrupt range shifts occurred as species were outpaced by the rate of climate change, and increased again when a new equilibrium situation was realised. When ranges contracted, prediction accuracies increased as the absences were predicted well. Far‐dispersing species were faster in tracking climate change, and were predicted more accurately by SDMs than short‐dispersing species. BRTs mostly outperformed GLMs. The presence of a predator, and the inclusion of its incidence as an environmental predictor, made BRTs and GLMs perform similarly. Results are discussed in light of other studies dealing with effects of ecological traits and processes on SDM performance. Perspectives are given on further advancements of SDMs and for possible interfaces with more mechanistic approaches in order to improve predictions under environmental change.

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.1600-0587.2009.05810.x

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 163

Metadata

Authors
Zurell, D., Jeltsch, F., Dormann, C. F., & Schröder, B.
Venue
Ecography
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-09-29
Volume
32
Issue
5
Pages
733-744
ISSN
  • 0906-7590 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0587
OpenAlex
W1965759024
Cited by
163
References
4
FWCI
7.92
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: Static species distribution models in dynamically changing systems: how good can predictions really be? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.05810.x
The paper
Zurell, D., Jeltsch, F., Dormann, C. F., & Schröder, B. (2009). Static species distribution models in dynamically changing systems: how good can predictions really be? Ecography. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.05810.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.