A comparison of methods for mapping species ranges and species richness

By Catherine H. Graham, Robert J. Hijmans. 2006

447 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/338dcbe9f820565f8d7f4127bf8ce7f7d32f9c96

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

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

The use of opportunistic data for IUCN Red List assessments (2015, background): “Such maps are often displayed in field guides to illustrate the possible species distribution range in a usually large region (e.g., world, continent – Graham & Hijmans, 2006).”
Stacking species distribution models and adjusting bias by linking them to macroecological models (2014, background): “We might therefore expect MEMs to predict site-level richness well, and probably better and more consistently than S-SDMs, which have substantial problems dealing with rare species (Graham & Hijmans, 2006; Pineda & Lobo, 2009; Guisan & Rahbek, 2011).”
Species Distribution Modeling in the Tropics: Problems, Potentialities, and the Role of Biological Data for Effective Species Conservation (2009, methodology): “An alternative genetic algorithm technique is the Bayes-based genetic algorithm implemented by McClean et al. (2006).”
Profile or group discriminative techniques? Generating reliable species distribution models using pseudo‐absences and target‐group absences from natural history collections (2010, background): “The size of the buffer could be a random measurement, or it could be established according to a particular characteristic of the species, such as the dispersal capacity (Graham & Hijmans, 2006).”
Shifts in plant distributions in response to climate warming in a biodiversity hotspot, the Hengduan Mountains (2018, methodology): “We overlaid distribution consensus maps for all sampled species onto a single map for each period in order to generate new maps representing the species richness of the focal area (Graham & Hijmans, 2006).”
The sizes of species’ geographic ranges (2009, background): “…distributions based on range-wide occurrences suffer from greater errors of omission than commission, with sampling effort seldom adequate except at coarse mapping resolutions and often inadequate at any resolution that is useful for many applied purposes (Graham & Hijmans 2006; Rondinini et al .”
A strict maximum likelihood explanation of MaxEnt, and some implications for distribution modelling (2013, methodology): “Overfitting of Types I and II of MaxEnt models for the SPM purpose can be revealed in several ways, of which one of the most frequently used are comparison of the area under the receiver operating (ROC) curve (AUC; Hanley & McNeil 1982, Pearce & Ferrier 2000b) between simpler and more complex models”
The effects of small sample size and sample bias on threshold selection and accuracy assessment of species distribution models (2012, methodology): “A thorough review of approaches is provided by Elith et al. (2006), Graham and Hijmans (2006) and Elith and Leathwick (2009).”
Atlas of Brazilian Snakes: Verified Point-Locality Maps to Mitigate the Wallacean Shortfall in a Megadiverse Snake Fauna (2019, background): “However, richness levels at conti- nental scales are highly influenced by mapping protocols (Graham and Hijmans, 2006) due to the opposing effects of false positives (commission errors) and false negatives (omission errors).”
A framework for delineating biogeographical regions based on species distributions (2010, background): “Due to the very limited data availability for many parts of the world and larger errors of omission (Graham & Hijmans, 2006; McPherson & Jetz, 2007), particularly in the tropics, this type of information is currently usable only for few taxa and regions.”
Measuring and modelling biodiversity from space (2008, background): “Even in relatively well-studied areas, different fi eld data sources can lead to dissimilar or biased maps of species distributions and diversity (Graham and Hijmans, 2006; Moerman and Estabrook, 2006; Pautasso and McKinney, 2007), and in areas such as the tropics species occurrence and…”