Niche and area of distribution modeling: A population ecology perspective

Ecography

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 159-167

  Soberón, Jorge M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; BIOTIC FACTOR; BUTTERFLY; ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; MOVEMENT; NICHE; NUMERICAL MODEL; POPULATION DISTRIBUTION; POPULATION ECOLOGY;

BARONIA BREVICORNIS;

EID: 77953941691     PISSN: 09067590     EISSN: 16000587     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.06074.x     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Angert, A. L. and Schemske, D. W. 2005. The evolution of species distributions: reciprocal transplants across the elevation ranges of Mimulus cardinalis and M. lewisii.- Evolution 59: 1671-1684.
2. Araújo, M. B. and Guisan, A. 2006. Five (or so) challenges for species distribution modelling. - Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 33: 1677-1688.
3. Austin, M. P. 1980. Searching for a model to use in vegetation analysis. - Vegetatio 42: 11-21.
4. Austin, M. P. 2002. Spatial prediction of species distribution: an interface between ecological theory and statistical modelling. - Ecol. Model. 157: 101-118.
5. Bahn, V. and McGill, B. J. 2007. Can niche-based distribution models outperform spatial interpolation? - Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 16: 733-742.
6. Beale, C. et al. 2008. Opening the climate envelope reveals no macroscale associations with climate in European birds. - Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 105: 14908-14912.
7. Beaumont, L. J. et al. 2005. Predicting species distributions: use of climatic parameters in BIOCLIM and its impact on predictions of species' current and future distributions. - Ecol. Model. 186: 250-269.
8. Begon, M. et al. 2006. Ecology: from individuals to ecosystems. - Blackwell.
9. Brotons, L. et al. 2004. Presence-absence versus presence-only modelling methods for predicting bird habitat suitability. - Ecography 27: 437-448.
10. Brown, J. H. et al. 1996. The geographic range: size, shape, boundaries and internal structure. - Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 27: 597-623.
11. Bullock, J. M. et al. 2000. Geographical separation of two Ulex species at three spatial scales: does competition limit species' ranges? - Ecography 23: 257-271.
12. Busby, J. R. et al. 1991. BIOCLIM - a bioclimate analysis and prediction system. - In: Margules, C. R. and Austin, M. P. (eds), Nature conservation. Cost Effective Biological Surveys and Data Analysis, Canberra, Australia.
13. CCA 1997. Ecological regions of North America. - Comisión de Cooperación Ambiental de América del Norte, Montreal.
14. Chase, J. M. and Leibold, M. 2003. Ecological niches: linking classical and contemporary approaches. - Univ. of Chicago Press.
15. Coudun, C. et al. 2006. Soil nutritional factors improve models of plant species distribution: an illustration with Acer campestre (L.) in France. - J. Biogeogr. 33: 1750-1763.
16. Dormann, C. F. et al. 2007. Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data: a review. - Ecography 30: 609-628.
17. Edwards, J. 2004. Research and societal benefits of the global biodiversity information facility. - BioScience 54: 485-486.
18. Elith, J. and Graham, C. 2009. Do they? How do they? WHY do they differ? On finding reasons for differing performances of species distribution models. - Ecography 32: 66-77.
19. Elith, J. and Leathwick, J. 2009. Species distribution models: ecological explanation and predictionacross space and time. - Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 40: 677-697.
20. Elith, J. et al. 2006. Novel methods improve prediction of species' distributions from occurrence data. - Ecography 29: 129-151.
21. Feria, P. and Peterson, A. T. 2002. Prediction of bird community composition based on point-occurrence data and inferential algorithms: a valuable tool in biodiversity assessments. - Divers. Distrib. 8: 49-56.
22. Grinnell, J. 1914. Barriers to distribution as regards birds and mammals. - Am. Nat. 48: 248-254.
23. Guisan, A. and Zimmermann, N. 2000. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. - Ecol. Model. 135: 147-186.
24. Guisan, A. and Thuiller, W. 2005. Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. - Ecol. Lett. 8: 993-1009.
25. Hassell, M. et al. 1998. Top-down versus bottom-up and the Ruritanian bean bug. - Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 95: 10661-10664.
26. Heikkinen, R. K. et al. 2007. Biotic interactions improve prediction of boreal bird distributions at macroscales. - Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 16: 754-763.
27. Hijmans, R. J. et al. 2001. Computer tools for spatial analysis of plant genetic resources data: DIVA-GIS. - Plant Genet. Resour. Newslett. 127: 15-19.
28. Hijmans, R. J. et al. 2005. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. - Int. J. Climatol. 25: 1965-1978.
29. Hirzel, A. H. and Le Lay, G. 2008. Habitat suitability modelling and niche theory. - J. Appl. Ecol. 45: 1372-1381.
30. Hutchinson, G. E. 1957. Concluding remarks. - Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol. 22: 415-427.
31. Hutchinson, G. E. 1978. An introduction to population ecology. - Yale Univ. Press.
32. Jackson, S. T. and Overpeck, J. T. 2000. Responses of plant populations and communities to environmental changes of the late Quaternary. - Paleobiology 26 (Suppl.): 194-220.
33. James, F. C. et al. 1984. The Grinnellian niche of the wood thrush. - Am. Nat. 124: 17-47.
34. Jiménez-Valverde, A. et al. 2008. Not as good as they seem: the importance of concept in species distribution modelling. - Divers. Distrib. 14: 885-890.
35. Kearney, M. 2006. Habitat, environment and niche: what are we modelling? - Oikos 115: 186-191.
36. Kearney, M. and Porter, W. P. 2009. Mechanistic niche modelling: combining physiological and spatial data to predict species' ranges. - Ecol. Lett. 12: 334-350.
37. Keating, K. A. and Cherry, S. 2004. Use and interpretation of logistic regression in habitat-selection studies. - J. Wildl. Manage. 68: 774-7789.
38. Kriticos, D. and Randall, R. P. 2001. A comparison of systems to analyze potential weed distributions. - In: Groves, R. H. et al. (eds), Weed risk assessment. CSIRO Publ.
39. Leathwick, J. 1998. Are New Zealand's Nothofagus species in equilibrium with their environment? - J. Veg. Sci. 9: 719-732.
40. Leathwick, J. R. and Austin, M. 2001. Competitive interactions between tree species in New Zealand's old-growth indigenous forest. - Ecology 82: 2560-2573.
41. Leibold, M. 1996. The niche concept revisited: mechanistic models and community context. - Ecology 76: 1371-1382.
42. León-Cortés, J. 2004. Complex habitat requirements and conservation needs of the only extant Baroniinae swallowtail butterfly. - Anim. Conserv. 7: 241-250.
43. Lobo, J. M. et al. 2010. The uncertain nature of absences and their importance in species distribution modelling. - Ecography 33: 103-114.
44. MacArthur, R. 1972. Geographical ecology. - Harper and Row.
45. Mackey, B. and Lindenmayer, D. B. 2001. Towards a hierarchical framework for modelling the spatial distribution of animals. - J. Biogeogr. 28: 1147-1166.
46. Meszena, G. et al. 2006. Competitive exclusion and limiting similarity: a unified theory. - Theor. Popul. Biol. 69: 68-87.
47. Molofsky, J. et al. 1999. Local frequency dependence and global coexistence. - Theor. Popul. Biol. 55: 270-282.
48. Odling-Smee, F. J. et al. 2003. Niche construction. The neglected process in evolution. - Princeton Univ. Press.
49. Pearson, R. G. and Dawson, T. P. 2003. Predicting the impacts of climate change on the distribution of species: are bioclimatic envelopes useful? - Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 12: 361-371.
50. Pérez-Ruiz, H. 1971. Algunas consideraciones sobre la población de Baronia brevicornis (Slv. (Lepidoptera, baroniinae)) en la región de Mezcala, Guerrero. - Anales del Inst. de Biol., U.N.A.M. 42 Ser. Zool. 1: 63-72.
51. Pérez-Ruiz, H. 1977. Distribución geográfica y estructura poblacional de Baronia brevicornis Salv. (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae, Baroniinae) en la República Mexicana. - Anales del Inst. de Biol., U.N.A.M. 48: 151-164.
52. Peterson, A. T. 2003. Predicting the geography of species' invasions via ecological niche modeling. - Q. Rev. Biol. 78: 419-433.
53. Peterson, A. T. 2006. Uses and requirements of ecological niche models and related distributional models. - Biodivers. Inform. 3: 59-72.
54. Phillips, S. et al. 2009. Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudoabsence data. - Ecol. Appl. 19: 181-197.
55. Pulliam, R. 2000. On the relationship between niche and distribution. - Ecol. Lett. 3: 349-361.
56. Rangel, T. F. et al. 2006. Towards and integrated computational tool for spatial analysis in macroecology and biogeography. - Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 15: 321-327.
57. Raxworthy, C. J. et al. 2003. Predicting distributions of known and unknown reptile species in Madagascar. - Nature 426: 837-841.
58. Sagarin, R. et al. 2006. Moving beyond assumptions to understand abundance distributions across ranges of species. - Trends Ecol. Evol. 21: 524-530.
59. Sanchez-Cordero, V. and Martínez-Meyer, E. 2000. Museum specimen data predict crop damage by tropical rodents. - Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 97: 7074-7077.
60. Shmida, A. and Wilson, M. V. 1985. Biological determinants of species diversity. - J. Biogeogr. 12: 1-20.
61. Soberón, J. 2007. Grinnellian and Eltonian niches and geographic distributions of species. - Ecol. Lett. 10: 1115-1123.
62. Soberón, J. and Peterson, A. T. 2004. Biodiversity informatics: managing and applying primary biodiversity data. - Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 35: 689-698.
63. Soberón, J. and Peterson, A. T. 2005. Interpretation of models of fundamental ecological niches and species' distributional areas. - Biodivers. Inform. 2: 1-10.
64. Soberón, J. and Nakamura, M. 2009. Niches and distributional areas: concepts, methods and assumptions. - Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 106: 19644-19650.
65. Solé, R. and Bascompte, J. 2006. Self-organization in complex ecosystems. - Princeton Univ. Press.
66. Sutherst, R. W. and Maywald, G. F. 1985. A computerised system for matching climates in Ecology. - Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 13: 281-299.
67. Thompson, J. N. 2005. The geographic mosaic of coevolution. - Chicago Univ. Press.
68. Thuiller, W. et al. 2009. BIOMOD - a platform for ensamble forecasting of species distributions. - Ecography 32: 369-373.
69. Vandermeer, J. 1972. Niche theory. - Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 3: 107-132.
70. Volterra, V. 1931. Variations and fluctuations of the number of individuals in animal species living together (translation from the Italian original). - In: Whittaker, R. H. and Levin, S. A. (eds), Niche: theory and applications. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, PA.
71. Ward, G. et al. 2009. Presence-only data and the EM algorithm. - Biometrics 65: 554-563.
72. Whittaker, R. J. et al. 2001. Scale and richness: towards a general hierarchical theory of species diversity. - J. Biogeogr. 28: 453-470.