The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Species Distribution Modeling
Abstract
The use of species distribution models (SDM) to map and monitor animal and plant distributions has become increasingly important in the context of awareness of environmental change and its ecological consequences. From their original inception as resource inventory and conservation mapping tools, SDM have evolved along with the increasing variety and availability of statistical methods, digital biological, and environmental data with which they are built in a geographic information system. Beyond predicting species distributions, these models have become an important and widely used decision‐making tool for a variety of biogeographical applications, such as studying the effects of climate change, identifying potential protected areas, determining locations potentially susceptible to invasion, and mapping vector‐borne disease spread and risk. This article outlines the steps involved in formulating an SDM and focuses on the conceptual and theoretical foundations on which it is based and identifies issues that have merited recent and will merit future research attention.
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
The Elements of Statistical Learning
Hastie, T., Friedman, J., & Tibshirani, R. (2001) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-21606-5 · Cited by 24,162
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
Hutchinson, G. E. (1957) · Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology · doi:10.1101/sqb.1957.022.01.039 · Cited by 6,228
Pearson, R. G., & Dawson, T. P. (2003) · Global Ecology and Biogeography · doi:10.1046/j.1466-822x.2003.00042.x · Cited by 4,252
F. Dormann, C., M. McPherson, J., B. Araújo, M., Bivand, R., Bolliger, J., Carl, G., G. Davies, R., Hirzel, A., Jetz, W., Daniel Kissling, W., et al. (2007) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.2007.0906-7590.05171.x · Cited by 3,433
Selecting thresholds of occurrence in the prediction of species distributions
Liu, C., Berry, P. M., Dawson, T. P., & Pearson, R. G. (2005) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.0906-7590.2005.03957.x · Cited by 2,701
An evaluation of methods for modelling species distributions
Segurado, P., & Araújo, M. B. (2004) · Journal of Biogeography · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2004.01076.x · Cited by 875
COMPETITIVE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN TREE SPECIES IN NEW ZEALAND'S OLD-GROWTH INDIGENOUS FORESTS
Leathwick, J. R., & Austin, M. P. (2001) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[2560:cibtsi]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 243
Cited by
Valavi, R., Guillera‐Arroita, G., Lahoz‐Monfort, J. J., & Elith, J. (2022) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.1002/ecm.1486 · Cited by 830
Hao, T., Elith, J., Lahoz‐Monfort, J. J., & Guillera‐Arroita, G. (2020) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.04890 · Cited by 477
Morales, N. S., Fernández, I. C., & Baca-González, V. (2017) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.3093 · Cited by 464
Current trends of rubber plantation expansion may threaten biodiversity and livelihoods
Ahrends, A., Hollingsworth, P. M., Ziegler, A. D., Fox, J. M., Chen, H., Su, Y., & Xu, J. (2015) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.06.002 · Cited by 428
Landscape ecology and biogeography: Rethinking landscape metrics in a post-FRAGSTATS landscape
Kupfer, J. A. (2012) · Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment · doi:10.1177/0309133312439594 · Cited by 347
Metadata
- Authors
- Miller, J.
- Venue
- Geography Compass
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-06
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 490-509
- ISSN
- 1749-8198 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2158040254
- Cited by
- 689
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 7.36
- 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: Species Distribution Modeling. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2010.00351.x
- The paper
- Miller, J. (2010). Species Distribution Modeling. Geography Compass. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2010.00351.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.
