The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
WHAT MATTERS FOR PREDICTING THE OCCURRENCES OF TREES: TECHNIQUES, DATA, OR SPECIES' CHARACTERISTICS?
Open accessAbstract
Data characteristics and species traits are expected to influence the accuracy with which species' distributions can be modeled and predicted. We compare 10 modeling techniques in terms of predictive power and sensitivity to location error, change in map resolution, and sample size, and assess whether some species traits can explain variation in model performance. We focused on 30 native tree species in Switzerland and used presence-only data to model current distribution, which we evaluated against independent presence–absence data. While there are important differences between the predictive performance of modeling methods, the variance in model performance is greater among species than among techniques. Within the range of data perturbations in this study, some extrinsic parameters of data affect model performance more than others: location error and sample size reduced performance of many techniques, whereas grain had little effect on most techniques. No technique can rescue species that are difficult to predict. The predictive power of species-distribution models can partly be predicted from a series of species characteristics and traits based on growth rate, elevational distribution range, and maximum elevation. Slow-growing species or species with narrow and specialized niches tend to be better modeled. The Swiss presence-only tree data produce models that are reliable enough to be useful in planning and management applications.
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
Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach.
Guthery, F. S., Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2003) · The Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2307/3802723 · Cited by 41,495
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
Phillips, S. J., Dudík, M., Elith, J., Graham, C. H., Lehmann, A., Leathwick, J., & Ferrier, S. (2009) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/07-2153.1 · Cited by 2,996
Self-citationENVIRONMENTAL NICHE EQUIVALENCY VERSUS CONSERVATISM: QUANTITATIVE APPROACHES TO NICHE EVOLUTION
Warren, D. L., Glor, R. E., & Turelli, M. (2008) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00482.x · Cited by 2,663
Where is positional uncertainty a problem for species distribution modelling?
Naimi, B., Hamm, N. A. S., Groen, T. A., Skidmore, A. K., & Toxopeus, A. G. (2014) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.00205.x · Cited by 1,901
Uncertainty in ensemble forecasting of species distribution
BUISSON, L., THUILLER, W., CASAJUS, N., LEK, S., & GRENOUILLET, G. (2010) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.02000.x · Cited by 708
Norberg, A., Abrego, N., Blanchet, F. G., Adler, F. R., Anderson, B. J., Anttila, J., Araújo, M. B., Dallas, T., Dunson, D., Elith, J., et al. (2019) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.1002/ecm.1370 · Cited by 573
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Guisan, A., Zimmermann, N. E., Elith, J., Graham, C. H., Phillips, S., & Peterson, A. T.
- Venue
- Ecological Monographs
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-11
- Volume
- 77
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 615-630
- ISSN
- 0012-9615 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2128285285
- Cited by
- 385
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 11.12
- 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 MATTERS FOR PREDICTING THE OCCURRENCES OF TREES: TECHNIQUES, DATA, OR SPECIES' CHARACTERISTICS? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/06-1060.1
- The paper
- Guisan, A., Zimmermann, N. E., Elith, J., Graham, C. H., Phillips, S., & Peterson, A. T. (2007). WHAT MATTERS FOR PREDICTING THE OCCURRENCES OF TREES: TECHNIQUES, DATA, OR SPECIES' CHARACTERISTICS? Ecological Monographs. https://doi.org/10.1890/06-1060.1
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.