Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 265

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 114 of the 114 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

What we use is not what we know: environmental predictors in plant distribution models

Open access
Mod, Heidi K., Scherrer, Daniel, Luoto, Miska, Guisan, Antoine·2016·Journal of Vegetation Science

Abstract

Aims: The choice of environmental predictor variables in correlative models of plant species distributions (hereafter SDM s) is crucial to ensure predictive accuracy and model realism, as highlighted in multiple earlier studies. Because variable selection is directly related to a model's capacity to capture important species' environmental requirements, one would expect an explicit prior consideration of all ecophysiologically meaningful variables. For plants, these include temperature, water, soil nutrients, light, and in some cases, disturbances and biotic interactions. However, the set of predictors used in published correlative plant SDM studies varies considerably. No comprehensive review exists of what environmental predictors are meaningful, available (or missing) and used in practice to predict plant distributions. Contributing to answer these questions is the aim of this review. Methods: We carried out an extensive, systematic review of recently published plant SDM studies (years 2010–2015;n = 200) to determine the predictors used (and not used) in the models. We additionally conducted an in‐depth review of SDM studies in selected journals to identify temporal trends in the use of predictors (years 2000–2015;n = 40). Results: A large majority of plant SDM studies neglected several ecophysiologically meaningful environmental variables, and the number of relevant predictors used in models has stagnated or even declined over the last 15 yr. Conclusions: Neglecting ecophysiologically meaningful predictors can result in incomplete niche quantification and can thus limit the predictive power of plant SDM s. Some of these missing predictors are already available spatially or may soon become available (e.g. soil moisture). However, others are not yet easily obtainable across whole study extents (e.g. soil pH and nutrients), and their development should receive increased attention. We conclude that more effort should be made to build ecologically more sound plant SDM s. This requires a more thorough rationale for the choice of environmental predictors needed to meet the study goal, and the development of missing ones. The latter calls for increased collaborative effort between ecological and geo‐environmental sciences.

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/jvs.12444

Cites

114 of 114 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 114 references

Cited by

See all 265

Metadata

Authors
Mod, H. K., Scherrer, D., Luoto, M., & Guisan, A.
Venue
Journal of Vegetation Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-09
Volume
27
Issue
6
Pages
1308-1322
ISSN
  • 1100-9233 (ISSN-L)
  • 1654-1103
OpenAlex
W2516412211
Cited by
265
References
114
FWCI
8.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: What we use is not what we know: environmental predictors in plant distribution models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/jvs.12444
The paper
Mod, H. K., Scherrer, D., Luoto, M., & Guisan, A. (2016). What we use is not what we know: environmental predictors in plant distribution models. Journal of Vegetation Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12444

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.