Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27293739›Full record

ArticleConservation physiology2015

Mechanistic species distribution modelling as a link between physiology and conservation.

Tyler G Evans, Sarah E Diamond, Morgan W Kelly

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conservation physiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

63 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Method matters: Comparing habitat- and process-based approaches for favorability assessment.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Thermal sensitivity of respiration and ROS emission of muscle mitochondria in deer mice.Journal of comparative physiology. B, Biochemical, systemic, and environmental physiology · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Ecological associations distribution modelling of marine plankton at a global scale.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Tyler G EvansDepartment of Biological Sciences, California State University East Bay, 25800 Carlos Bee Boulevard, Hayward, CA 95442, USA.
Sarah E DiamondDepartment of Biology, Case Western Reserve University, 2080 Adelbert Road, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA.
Morgan W KellyDepartment of Biological Sciences, Louisiana State University, 202 Life Sciences Building, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Climate change conservation planning relies heavily on correlative species distribution models that estimate future areas of occupancy based on environmental conditions encountered in present-day ranges. The approach benefits from rapid assessment of vulnerability over a large number of organisms, but can have poor predictive power when transposed to novel environments and reveals little in the way of causal mechanisms that define changes in species distribution or abundance. Having conservation planning rely largely on this single approach also increases the risk of policy failure. Mechanistic models that are parameterized with physiological information are expected to be more robust when extrapolating distributions to future environmental conditions and can identify physiological processes that set range boundaries. Implementation of mechanistic species distribution models requires knowledge of how environmental change influences physiological performance, and because this information is currently restricted to a comparatively small number of well-studied organisms, use of mechanistic modelling in the context of climate change conservation is limited. In this review, we propose that the need to develop mechanistic models that incorporate physiological data presents an opportunity for physiologists to contribute more directly to climate change conservation and advance the field of conservation physiology. We begin by describing the prevalence of species distribution modelling in climate change conservation, highlighting the benefits and drawbacks of both mechanistic and correlative approaches. Next, we emphasize the need to expand mechanistic models and discuss potential metrics of physiological performance suitable for integration into mechanistic models. We conclude by summarizing other factors, such as the need to consider demography, limiting broader application of mechanistic models in climate change conservation. Ideally, modellers, physiologists and conservation practitioners would work collaboratively to build models, interpret results and consider conservation management options, and articulating this need here may help to stimulate collaboration.

Indexed as

Climate changedemographymodelphysiologyspecies distributiontemperature

Identifiers

PMID27293739
PMCPMC4778482

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.