ArticlePloS one2026
Lessons learned using species' distribution models for conservation planning in the Golden Gate Biosphere reserve.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conservation practitioners responsible for maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem services within protected areas require information about how dominant plant species may reassemble under rapid global change. Although species' distribution models (SDMs) alone do not account for multiple threats or species population dynamics, they can provide robust assessments of where species may persist or disperse to in the future, especially if carefully constructed and thoroughly evaluated. We used ensemble SDMs to evaluate how climate change may alter suitable habitat for six dominant plant species representing different life forms within the Golden Gate Biosphere Network (GGBN), located along the central to northern coast of California. We trained the models on presence-absence data and 23 environmental predictors, including climate, topography, and soils, using six algorithms. We projected habitat suitability to late-century climate conditions using three GCMs under RCP 8.5 and summarized areas of agreement, expansion, and refugia. Model results can be summarized into several lessons learned, many of which are consistent with previous research. The first is that projected habitat may either expand or contract, and the direction of change varies by individual species, even within the same genus. Many projected changes reflected species' relationships with key climate variables relative to their future projected trends. Disagreement across scenarios was largely driven by uncertainty in projected precipitation changes, while non-climatic variables, particularly soils, were also important in mediating projected habitat change. Contrary to common assumptions, projected habitat shifts were not always upslope or poleward. Finally, although species face multiple threats from other global changes, SDMs can provide a valuable baseline for conservation decisions within small reserves, particularly through identification of refugia and comparison of model scenarios. However, habitat changes within protected areas may not reflect dynamics elsewhere across species' ranges, underscoring the need for multi-scale conservation planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.