Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32273987›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2020

Predictor species: Improving assessments of rare species occurrence by modeling environmental co-responses.

Peter R Thompson, William F Fagan, Phillip P A Staniczenko

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Identifying potentially suitable and accessible refugia to mitigate impacts of an emerging disease on a rare tree.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
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.

Peter R ThompsonDepartment of Biology University of Maryland College Park MD USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7590-8473
William F FaganDepartment of Biology University of Maryland College Park MD USA.
Phillip P A StaniczenkoDepartment of Biology University of Maryland College Park MD USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5091-8416

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Designing an effective conservation strategy requires understanding where rare species are located. Because rare species can be difficult to find, ecologists often identify other species called conservation surrogates that can help inform the distribution of rare species. Species distribution models typically rely on environmental data when predicting the occurrence of species, neglecting the effect of species' co-occurrences and biotic interactions. Here, we present a new approach that uses Bayesian networks to improve predictions by modeling environmental co-responses among species. For species from a European peat bog community, our approach consistently performs better than single-species models and better than conventional multi-species approaches that include the presence of nontarget species as additional independent variables in regression models. Our approach performs particularly well with rare species and when calibration data are limited. Furthermore, we identify a group of "predictor species" that are relatively common, insensitive to the presence of other species, and can be used to improve occurrence predictions of rare species. Predictor species are distinct from other categories of conservation surrogates such as umbrella or indicator species, which motivates focused data collection of predictor species to enhance conservation practices.

Indexed as

Bayesian networkscommunity ecologypeat bogsspecies distribution models

Identifiers

PMID32273987
PMCPMC7140998

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.