The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Improving the prediction of plant species distribution and community composition by adding edaphic to topo‐climatic variables
Open accessAbstract
Questions: Soil properties have been widely shown to influence plant growth and distribution. However, the degree to which edaphic variables can improve models based on topo‐climatic variables is still unclear. In this study, we tested the roles of seven edaphic variables, namely (1) p H; (2) the content of nitrogen and of (3) phosphorus; (4) silt; (5) sand; (6) clay and (7) carbon‐to‐nitrogen ratio, as predictors of species distribution models in an edaphically heterogeneous landscape. We also tested how the respective influence of these variables in the models is linked to different ecological and functional species characteristics. Location: The Western Alps, Switzerland. Methods: With four different modelling techniques, we built models for 115 plant species using topo‐climatic variables alone and then topo‐climatic variables plus each of the seven edaphic variables, one at a time. We evaluated the contribution of each edaphic variable by assessing the change in predictive power of the model. In a second step, we evaluated the importance of the two edaphic variables that yielded the largest increase in predictive power in one final set of models for each species. Third, we explored the change in predictive power and the importance of variables across plant functional groups. Finally, we assessed the influence of the edaphic predictors on the prediction of community composition by stacking the models for all species and comparing the predicted communities with the observed community. Results: Among the set of edaphic variables studied, p H and nitrogen content showed the highest contributions to improvement of the predictive power of the models, as well as the predictions of community composition. When considering all topo‐climatic and edaphic variables together, p H was the second most important variable after degree‐days. The changes in model results caused by edaphic predictors were dependent on species characteristics. The predictions for the species that have a low specific leaf area, and acidophilic preferences, tolerating low soil p H and high humus content, showed the largest improvement by the addition of p H and nitrogen in the model. Conclusions: p H was an important predictor variable for explaining species distribution and community composition of the mountain plants considered in our study. p H allowed more precise predictions for acidophilic species. This variable should not be neglected in the construction of species distribution models in areas with contrasting edaphic conditions.
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
McCullagh, P., & Nelder, J. A. (1989) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-3242-6 · Cited by 16,836
Global Biodiversity Scenarios for the Year 2100
Sala, O. E., Stuart Chapin, F., III, Armesto, J. J., Berlow, E., Bloomfield, J., Dirzo, R., Huber-Sanwald, E., Huenneke, L. F., Jackson, R. B., et al. (2000) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.287.5459.1770 · Cited by 9,280
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
Friedman, J., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2000) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1016218223 · Cited by 6,884
Grime, J. P. (1977) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/283244 · Cited by 5,754
Cited by
ecospat: an R package to support spatial analyses and modeling of species niches and distributions
Di Cola, V., Broennimann, O., Petitpierre, B., Breiner, F. T., D'Amen, M., Randin, C., Engler, R., Pottier, J., Pio, D., Dubuis, A., et al. (2017) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.02671 · Cited by 1,281
Self-citationWhat do we gain from simplicity versus complexity in species distribution models?
Merow, C., Smith, M. J., Edwards, T. C., Guisan, A., McMahon, S. M., Normand, S., Thuiller, W., Wüest, R. O., Zimmermann, N. E., & Elith, J. (2014) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.00845 · Cited by 683
Self-citationWhat we use is not what we know: environmental predictors in plant distribution models
Mod, H. K., Scherrer, D., Luoto, M., & Guisan, A. (2016) · Journal of Vegetation Science · doi:10.1111/jvs.12444 · Cited by 265
Self-citationMonitoring biodiversity in the Anthropocene using remote sensing in species distribution models
Randin, C. F., Ashcroft, M. B., Bolliger, J., Cavender-Bares, J., Coops, N. C., Dullinger, S., Dirnböck, T., Eckert, S., Ellis, E., Fernández, N., et al. (2020) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/j.rse.2019.111626 · Cited by 265
Self-citationArctic shrubification mediates the impacts of warming climate on changes to tundra vegetation
Mod, H. K., & Luoto, M. (2016) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/12/124028 · Cited by 47
Metadata
- Authors
- Dubuis, A., Giovanettina, S., Pellissier, L., Pottier, J., Vittoz, P., & Guisan, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Vegetation Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-10-29
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 593-606
- ISSN
- 1100-9233 (ISSN-L)
- 1654-1103
- OpenAlex
- W2081293291
- Cited by
- 216
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 6.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Improving the prediction of plant species distribution and community composition by adding edaphic to topo‐climatic variables. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/jvs.12002
- The paper
- Dubuis, A., Giovanettina, S., Pellissier, L., Pottier, J., Vittoz, P., & Guisan, A. (2013). Improving the prediction of plant species distribution and community composition by adding edaphic to topo‐climatic variables. Journal of Vegetation Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12002
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.