Planning for Climate Change: Identifying Minimum‐Dispersal Corridors for the Cape Proteaceae

By Paul H. Williams, L. Hannah, Sandy J. Andelman, Guy F. Midgley, Miguel B. Araújo, G. Hughes, L. Manne, E. Martínez‐Meyer, Richard G. Pearson. 2005

347 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/29502ba01042c7421894ba05788e94a1e857758c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecological Modeling

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Conservation Biogeography: assessment and prospect (2005, background): “1; Araújo et al., 2004a; Meir et al., 2004; Williams et al., 2005).”
Endemic species and ecosystem sensitivity to climate change in Namibia (2006, background): “Further analyses to identify additional protected areas to complement reserve networks (Araújo et al., 2004; Williams et al., 2005) would be an appropriate and effective strategy to counter climate change threats to endemic species.”
Vulnerability of African mammals to anthropogenic climate change under conservative land transformation assumptions (2006, background): “This is a major weakness of the niche-based modelling approach and needs urgent attention in order to develop more reliable conservation plans (Williams et al., 2005).”
Biological corridors and connectivity (2013, methodology): “The heart of this approach is either a dispersal chain model (Williams et al. 2005) or a network flow model (Phillips et al.”
Exploring the effects of quantity and location of pseudo-absences and sampling biases on the performance of distribution models with limited point occurrence data (2011, background): “Currently, the general lack of reliable distributional data for biogeographical and conservation purposes is overcome by the use of model predictions (Ferrier et al. 2002; Raxworthy et al. 2003; Williams et al. 2005).”
Do geographic distribution, niche property and life form explain plants' vulnerability to global change? (2006, background): “Thirdly, dispersal ability is usually not taken explicitly into account when projecting species distribution in the future (Pearson, 2006, but see Iverson et al., 1999; Williams et al., 2005).”
Review of the literature on the links between biodiversity and climate change: impacts, adaptation and mitigation. (2009, background): “2007), link habitats in new suitable climate zones with existing relatively ‘climate-proof’ refugia and include diverse reserve management strategies (see below) (Williams et al. 2005; CCSP 2008; Vos et al. 2008).”
Uses and misuses of bioclimatic envelope modeling. (2012, background): “Key words: biodiversity; biogeography; climate change; climate envelopes; conservation planning; ecological niches; invasions; niche conservation; restoration ecology; species distributions; translocation experiments; uncertainty in prediction.”
Characteristics of climate change refugia for Australian biodiversity (2014, background): “Importantly, some work has been done to identify the important areas for species current and future distributions, and the minimum-dispersal corridors between the two (Williams et al. 2005).”
Soil nutritional factors improve models of plant species distribution: an illustration with Acer campestre (L.) in France (2006, background): “…2004; Araújo et al., 2006), to test biogeographical hypotheses (Huntley et al., 2004; McPherson et al., 2004) or to deal with conservation planning problems (Margules & Stein, 1989; Araújo & Williams, 2000; Polasky et al., 2000; Araújo et al., 2004; Cabeza et al., 2004; Williams et al., 2005).”
Combined effects of climate and land‐use change on the future of humid tropical forests (2010, background): “In areas projected to be affected by climate change, reducing pressure from deforestation may increase the resilience of these ecosystems and facilitate the ability of species to move and keep pace with climate (Williams et al. 2005).”
Identifying priority areas for reducing species vulnerability to climate change (2012, background): “Dispersal models of varying degrees of complexity have been developed and applied in ecological responses of species to climate change (Pearson & Dawson, 2005; Williams et al., 2005; Midgley et al., 2006; Phillips et al., 2008; Carroll et al., 2010; Carvalho et al., 2010; Crossman et al., 2011).”
Projecting climate change impacts on species distributions in megadiverse South African Cape and Southwest Australian Floristic Regions: Opportunities and challenges (2009, background): “fire) of the selected species (Williams et al. 2005; Fitzpatrick et al. 2008).”
Connectivity for species on the move: supporting climate‐driven range shifts (2019, methodology): “More complex methods have incorporated dispersal dynamics into SDM- based connectivity via “dispersal chains” that link successively suitable areas within a prescribed dispersal distance (Williams et al. 2005).”
Uses and requirements of ecological niche models and related distributional models (2006, background): “2002) and identifying optimal dispersal corridor locations (Williams et al. 2005); indeed now these place-prioritization algorithms are able to base analyses on probability data (rather than just presence-absence data) (Araújo and Williams 2000; Cabeza et al.”