Species distribution models (SDMs) are used to inform a range of ecological, biogeographical and conservation applications. However, users often underestimate the strong links between data type, model output and suitability for end-use. We synthesize current knowledge and provide a simple framework that summarizes how interactions between data type and the sampling process (i.e. imperfect detection and sampling bias) determine the quantity that is estimated by a SDM. We then draw upon the published literature and simulations to illustrate and evaluate the information needs of the most common ecological, biogeographical and conservation applications of SDM outputs. We find that, while predictions of models fitted to the most commonly available observational data (presence records) suffice for some applications, others require estimates of occurrence probabilities, which are unattainable without reliable absence records. Our literature review and simulations reveal that, while converting continuous SDM outputs into categories of assumed presence or absence is common practice, it is seldom clearly justified by the application's objective and it usually degrades inference. Matching SDMs to the needs of particular applications is critical to avoid poor scientific inference and management outcomes. This paper aims to help modellers and users assess whether their intended SDM outputs are indeed fit for purpose.

SignificanceExpansive development for urbanization, agriculture, and resource extraction has resulted in much of the Earth’s vegetation existing as fragmented, isolated patches. Conservation planning typically deprioritizes small, isolated patches, as they are assumed to be of relatively little ecological value, instead focusing attention on conserving large, highly connected areas. Yet, our global analysis shows that, if we gave up on small patches of vegetation, we would stand to lose many species that are confined to those environments, and biodiversity would decline as a result. We should rethink the way we prioritize conservation to recognize the critical role that small, isolated patches play in conserving the world’s biodiversity. Restoring and reconnecting small isolated vegetation patches should be an immediate conservation priority.

The rising popularity of biodiversity offsetting as a tool for balancing biodiversity losses from development with equivalent gains elsewhere has sparked debate on many fronts. The fundamental questions are the following: is offsetting good, bad, or at least better than the status quo for biodiversity conservation outcomes, and what do we need to know to decide?We present a concise synthesis of the most contentious issues related to biodiversity offsetting, categorized as ethical, social, technical, or governance challenges. In each case, we discuss avenues for reducing disagreement over these issues and identify those that are likely to remain unresolved. We argue that there are many risks associated with the unscrutinized expansion of offset policy. Nevertheless, governments are increasingly adopting offset policies, so working rapidly to clarify and-where possible-to resolve these issues is essential.