Process, correlation and parameter fitting in species distribution models: a response to Kriticos et al.

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

Journal of Biogeography, 40(3), 612–613 (2013)

Cite this

@article{schymanski2013process,
  author = {Stanislaus J. Schymanski and Carsten F. Dormann and Juliano Cabral and Isabelle Chuine and Catherine H. Graham and Florian Hartig and Michael Kearney and Xavier Morin and Christine Römermann and Boris Schröder and Alexander Singer},
  title = {Process, correlation and parameter fitting in species distribution models: a response to Kriticos et al.},
  journal = {Journal of Biogeography},
  volume = {40},
  number = {3},
  pages = {612–613},
  year = {2013},
  doi = {10.1111/jbi.12075},
}

DOI: 10.1111/jbi.12075
Cited by 17 (Google Scholar) · 11 (OpenAlex), as of 07 September 2026

View article (DOI) Preprint

Abstract

In a recent article (Dormann et al., 2012, Journal of Biogeography, 39, 2119-2131), we compared different approaches to species distribution modelling and depicted modelling approaches along an axis from purely “correlative” to “forward process-based” models. In their correspondence, Kriticos et al. (2013, Journal of Biogeography, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2012.02791.x) challenge this view, claiming that our continuum representation neglects differences among models and does not consider the ability of fitted process-based models to combine the advantages of both process-based and correlative modelling approaches. Here we clarify that the continuum view resulted from recognition of the manifold differences between models. We also reinforce the point that the current trend towards combining different modelling approaches may lead not only to the desired combination of the advantages but also to the accumulation of the disadvantages of those approaches.

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

Kriticos et al. challenged the framing of species distribution models along a correlative-to-process-based continuum, arguing it neglects how a fitted process-based model might combine the strengths of both worlds. This response holds its ground: the continuum reflects real, substantive differences between models, and the growing trend of combining approaches risks compounding both sides' weaknesses just as easily as their strengths. The distinction has stayed relevant to a decade of biotic-interaction and climate-driven distribution modelling since.