Correlation and process in species distribution models: bridging a dichotomy

Carsten F. Dormann, Stanislaus J. Schymanski, Juliano Cabral, Isabelle Chuine, Catherine Graham, Florian Hartig, Michael Kearney, Xavier Morin, Christine Römermann, Boris Schröder, Alexander Singer

Journal of Biogeography, 39(12), 2119–2131 (2012)
Cite this
@article{dormann2012correlation,
  author = {Carsten F. Dormann and Stanislaus J. Schymanski and Juliano Cabral and Isabelle Chuine and Catherine Graham and Florian Hartig and Michael Kearney and Xavier Morin and Christine Römermann and Boris Schröder and Alexander Singer},
  title = {Correlation and process in species distribution models: bridging a dichotomy},
  journal = {Journal of Biogeography},
  volume = {39},
  number = {12},
  pages = {2119–2131},
  year = {2012},
  doi = {10.1111/j.1365-2699.2011.02659.x},
}

DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2011.02659.x
Cited by 904 (Google Scholar) · 756 (OpenAlex), as of 07 September 2026

View article (DOI)

Abstract

Within the field of species distribution modelling an apparent dichotomy exists between process-based and correlative approaches, where the processes are explicit in the former and implicit in the latter. However, these intuitive distinctions can become blurred when comparing species distribution modelling approaches in more detail. In this review article, we contrast the extremes of the correlative-process spectrum of species distribution models with respect to core assumptions, model building and selection strategies, validation, uncertainties, common errors and the questions they are most suited to answer. The extremes of such approaches differ clearly in many aspects, such as model building approaches, parameter estimation strategies and transferability. However, they also share strengths and weaknesses. We show that claims of one approach being intrinsically superior to the other are misguided and that they ignore the process-correlation continuum as well as the domains of questions that each approach is addressing. Nonetheless, the application of process-based approaches to species distribution modelling lags far behind more correlative (process-implicit) methods and more research is required to explore their potential benefits. We close with challenges for future development of process-explicit species distribution models and how they may complement current approaches to study species distributions.

What the paper shows and why it matters (AI-generated)

Species distribution modelling is often framed as a binary choice — correlative versus process-based — but this review shows the split dissolves on closer inspection: the two extremes share real strengths and weaknesses, and claiming one is intrinsically superior ignores both the continuum between them and the different questions each is suited to. With over 700 citing papers spanning climate-refugia mapping to invasive-species risk assessment, the continuum framing it proposed has become the field's default way of talking about the choice, still actively cited in exactly the model-intercomparison debates it anticipated.