Towards a hierarchical framework for modelling the spatial distribution of animals

By Brendan G. Mackey, David B. Lindenmayer. 2001

269 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/442ef6cbe7492889be87b1aa566428c4fcf39b71

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 Global and Planetary Change

Citations in the corpus

Cross-validation strategies for data with temporal, spatial, hierarchical, or phylogenetic structure (2017, background): “Solid lines show RMSE distributions with all test locations included while dashed lines show RMSE distributions with test locations non-analogous to training locations removed. and more local extents (Mackey and Lindenmayer 2001).”
Differences in spatial predictions among species distribution modeling methods vary with species traits and environmental predictors (2009, background): “…of environmental predictor variables in SDM is often a function of the scale of the analysis; but in general, the predictors describing the physical environment often fall into three classes: 1) climate, 2) terrain, and/or 3) substrate or landform (Franklin 1995, Mackey and Lindenmayer 2001).”
Linking fish and prawns to their environment: a hierarchical landscape approach (2004, background): “…and analytical frameworks that recognise the need to study ecological phenomena from a multiscaled hierarchical perspective (Allen & Starr 1982, Kotliar & Wiens 1990, Allen & Hoekstra 1992, Holling 1992, McAlpine et al. 1999, Mackey & Lindenmayer 2001, Lee et al. 2002, Pittman & McAlpine 2003).”
Grinnellian and Eltonian niches and geographic distributions of species. (2007, background): “The description of the area of distribution of a species based on the locations of the individuals composing it would reveal an extremely complex and dynamic structure (Erickson 1945; Brown et al. 1996; Mackey & Lindenmayer 2001; Gaston 2003).”
Global mapping of Jatropha curcas yield based on response of fitness to present and future climate (2010, background): “Crop performance is primarily constrained by the biophysical environment, which influences the availability of basic resources light, heat, water and mineral nutrients for plant growth (Mackey & Lindenmayer, 2001).”
Promising the future? Global change projections of species distributions (2007, background): “Testing specific hypotheses, e.g. on the spatial scale of habitat selection (Graf et al., 2005; Mackey & Lindenmayer, 2001), the speciesenergy hypothesis (Lennon, Greenwood, & Turner, 2000) or range-size effects on diversity pattern (Jetz & Rahbek, 2002).”
Patterns of beta diversity in Europe: the role of climate, land cover and distance across scales (2012, background): “This is based on the empirical observation that both the distributions of individual species (Mackey & Lindenmayer, 2001; Elith & Leathwick, 2009) and species richness (Willis & Whittaker, 2002) have different environmental correlates at different grains.”
Understanding (insect) species distributions across spatial scales (2010, background): “…extensively studied (Crawley and Harral 2001, Whittaker et al. 2001, Rahbek 2005), relatively less is known about how the determinants of the distributions of single species vary across spatial scales (but see, e.g. Mackey and Lindenmayer 2001, Pearson and Dawson 2003, Guisan and Thuiller 2005).”
An evaluation of methods for modelling species distributions (2004, background): “Moreover, if another spatial scale or resolution is adopted, then a different pattern of model performances might be observed (Mackey & Lindenmayer, 2001; Thuiller et al., 2003).”
Applications and limitations of museum data for conservation and ecology, with particular attention to species distribution models (2010, background): “The determinants of distributions are likely to be different at different spatial scales and extents of study (Mackey and Lindenmayer, 2001).”
Accuracy of resource selection functions across spatial scales (2006, background): “The majority of species appear to be responding to habitat patterns at more than one grain (Mackey & Lindenmayer, 2001).”
Niche and area of distribution modeling: a population ecology perspective (2010, background): “1) and the empirical evidence available (Grinnell 1914, Leathwick 1998, Bullock et al. 2000, Leathwick and Austin 2001, Mackey and Lindenmayer 2001, Coudun et al. 2006, Heikkinen et al. 2007) show that it is the simultaneous interplay of all factors that, strictly speaking, determines population…”
Integrating individual habitat choices and regional distribution of a biodiversity indicator and top predator (2004, background): “Analyses based on such a bottom-up approach will better integrate individual habitat choices with population level distribution, while simultaneously setting the investigation of distributional behaviour (sensu Mackey & Lindenmayer, 2001) within a dynamical, evolutionary framework.”
Reconciling approaches to biogeographical regionalization: a systematic and generic framework examined with a case study of the Australian continent (2007, background): “At smaller cartographic scales, the PERs are dominated by physical processes, while at larger scales they are biologically regulated (Mackey & Lindenmayer, 2001).”