In this post our Reviews Editor, Jason Fridley, highlights papers from the 4th Grime Reviews series, “How do species distribution models (SDMs) reflect and inform ecological processes?”.

The six papers include an array of methodological and conceptual issues at the vanguard of predicting range shifts in a changing environment. Sanczuk et al. (2024) describe a approach for incorporating plant-plant interactions in SDMs, integrating remote sensing and plot databases to derive a new interaction index. Incorporating species interactions into SDMs is also the focus of Wang et al. (2025), who review methods for integrating plant host distributions into microbial SDMs. On the conceptual front, Sandel et al. (2025) address challenges arising from species-environmental disequilibrium, and propose a suite of methods for reducing biased SDM predictions. Sampling bias is also a target of Zurell et al. (2024), in the context of methods for correcting temporal mismatches of occurrence and environmental data. Riva et al. (2024) describe a new approach for integrating multiscale processes into SDMs by consideration of habitat patch effects. Also on the theme of spatial scaling, Guisan et al. (2025) describe the issue of spatial truncation and how it can be minimized with spatially nested SDMs.

These reviews are a testament to the role of ecological theory in quantitative approaches that guide biodiversity applications. Gone are the days when linear extrapolation from a common set of environmental and occurrence data provides a sound basis for prediction. As these authors show, of fundamental importance is WHY species occur where they do (and where they don’t), and how our models reflect critical processes that include competition, facilitation, dispersal, and host-microbial dynamics, including the scales at which these processes occur. Together, we hope these reviews give readers a more critical appreciation of how SDMs are built and interpreted, with an eye toward further refinements as our understanding of species distribution limits continues to develop.

Stay tuned for the next set of papers in the Grime Reviews series in 2026: Grass-dominated ecosystems as climate solutions.

Citations:

Guisan, A., Chevalier, M., Adde, A., Zarzo‐Arias, A., Goicolea, T., Broennimann, O., … & Mateo, R. G. (2025). Spatially nested species distribution models (N‐SDM): An effective tool to overcome niche truncation for more robust inference and projections. Journal of Ecology DOI: 10.1111/1365-2745.70063

Riva, F., Martin, C. J., Galán Acedo, C., Bellon, E. N., Keil, P., Morán‐Ordóñez, A., … & Guisan, A. (2024). Incorporating effects of habitat patches into species distribution models. Journal of Ecology, 112(10), 2162–2182. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2745.14403

Sanczuk, P., Landuyt, D., De Lombaerde, E., Lenoir, J., Lorer, E., Luoto, M., … & De Frenne, P. (2024). Embracing plant–plant interactions—Rethinking predictions of species range shifts. Journal of Ecology, 112(12), 2698–2714. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2745.14415

Sandel, B., Merow, C., Serra‐Diaz, P., & Svenning, J. C. (2025). Disequilibrium in plant distributions: Challenges and approaches for species distribution models. Journal of Ecology. 113(4) 782–794 DOI: 10.1111/1365-2745.70009

Wang, Zihui; Piché-Choquette, Sarah; Lauzon, Jocelyn; Ishak, Sarah; Kembel, Steven (2025) Modeling the distribution of plant-associated microbes with species distribution models. Journal of Ecology, 113(6) 1434–1450 DOI: 10.1111/1365-2745.70035

Zurell, D., Zimmermann, N. E., & Brun, P. (2024). The niche through time: Considering phenology and demographic stages in plant distribution models. Journal of Ecology, 112(9), 1926–1939. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2745.14361