The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Building Statistical Models To Analyze Species Distributions
Abstract
Models of the geographic distributions of species have wide application in ecology. But the nonspatial, single-level, regression models that ecologists have often employed do not deal with problems of irregular sampling intensity or spatial dependence, and do not adequately quantify uncertainty. We show here how to build statistical models that can handle these features of spatial prediction and provide richer, more powerful inference about species niche relations, distributions, and the effects of human disturbance. We begin with a familiar generalized linear model and build in additional features, including spatial random effects and hierarchical levels. Since these models are fully specified statistical models, we show that it is possible to add complexity without sacrificing interpretability. This step-by-step approach, together with attached code that implements a simple, spatially explicit, regression model, is structured to facilitate self-teaching. All models are developed in a Bayesian framework. We assess the performance of the models by using them to predict the distributions of two plant species (Proteaceae) from South Africa's Cape Floristic Region. We demonstrate that making distribution models spatially explicit can be essential for accurately characterizing the environmental response of species, predicting their probability of occurrence, and assessing uncertainty in the model results. Adding hierarchical levels to the models has further advantages in allowing human transformation of the landscape to be taken into account, as well as additional features of the sampling process.
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
Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., & Rubin, D. B. (2003) · doi:10.1201/9780429258480 · Cited by 27,276
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
Cited by
Species Distribution Models: Ecological Explanation and Prediction Across Space and Time
Elith, J., & Leathwick, J. R. (2009) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.110308.120159 · Cited by 6,707
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
Merow, C., Smith, M. J., & Silander, J. A. (2013) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.07872.x · Cited by 3,392
Uses and Requirements of Ecological Niche Models and Related Distributional Models
Peterson, A. T. (2006) · Biodiversity Informatics · doi:10.17161/bi.v3i0.29 · Cited by 482
Wilson, A. M., & Jetz, W. (2016) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002415 · Cited by 406
Metadata
- Authors
- Latimer, A. M., Wu, S., Gelfand, A. E., & Silander Jr., J. A.
- Venue
- Ecological Applications
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-02
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 33-50
- ISSN
- 1051-0761 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2015628143
- Cited by
- 371
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 12.25
- 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: Building Statistical Models To Analyze Species Distributions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/04-0609
- The paper
- Latimer, A. M., Wu, S., Gelfand, A. E., & Silander Jr., J. A. (2006). Building Statistical Models To Analyze Species Distributions. Ecological Applications. https://doi.org/10.1890/04-0609
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.