Assessment of alternative approaches for bioclimatic modeling with special emphasis on the Mahalanobis distance

By Oren Farber, R. Kadmon. 2003

385 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/8b31bd4880c38f0b7eb422004745b85d3d2625ac

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

Use of niche models in invasive species risk assessments (2011, methodology): “…Phillips et al. 2006; GARP, Stockwell and Peters 1999; artificial neural networks, Olden et al. 2008) and geometrical methods based on set theory and profiles of distributions of presence data in environmental dimensions (BIOCLIM, Busby 1991; Mahalanobis distance, Farber and Kadmon 2003; Fig.”
Insights into the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) as a discrimination measure in species distribution modelling (2012, methodology): “For example, envelope and distance-based methods only require presence data (e.g. Busby, 1991; Farber & Kadmon, 2003).”
Global patterns in the shape of species geographical ranges reveal range determinants (2012, background): “This algorithm produces an elliptic envelope that can be related directly to the unimodal bell-shaped response of species to climate predictors (Farber & Kadmon, 2003).”
Habitat suitability for marine fishes using presence-only modelling and multibeam sonar (2010, background): “…the same data, and the majority of these have focused on terrestrial, freshwater or simulated datasets (Elith & Burgman 2002, Ferrier et al. 2002b, Olden & Jackson 2002, Farber & Kadmon 2003, Loiselle et al. 2003, Brotons et al. 2004, Segurado & Araújo 2004, Elith et al. 2006, Tsoar et al. 2007).”
Is there a correlation between abundance and environmental suitability derived from ecological niche modelling? A meta‐analysis (2017, methodology): “Similarity methods include BIOCLIM (Busby 1991), DOMAIN (Carpenter et al. 1993), Mahalanobis distance (Farber and Kadmon 2003), and AquaMaps (Kaschner et al. 2013).”
Unprotecting the rare species: a niche‐based gap analysis for odonates in a core Cerrado area (2011, background): “Nevertheless, recent studies (Farber & Kadmon, 2003; Elith et al., 2006; Peterson et al., 2007; Tsoar et al., 2007) have shown substantial variation in performance among these models.”
Conserving the Brazilian semiarid (Caatinga) biome under climate change (2012, methodology): “Seven different bioclimatic envelope models (BEMs) were used, including BIOCLIM (Busby 1991), Euclidian and Mahalanobis Distances (Farber and Kadmon 2003), Generalized Linear Models (GLM) (McCullagh and Nelder 1989), machine learning approaches such as Genetic Algorithm for Rule Set Production (GARP”
Uncertainty associated with survey design in Species Distribution Models (2014, methodology): “…and type of input data currently available and included: BIOCLIM (Busby, 1986), Gower distance (Carpenter et al., 1993), Mahalanobis distance (Farber & Kadmon, 2003), Euclidean distance, Generalized Linear Models (GLM; McCullagh & Nelder, 1989), Maximum Entropy Modelling (MaxEnt; Phillips et…”
Invasive and flexible: niche shift in the drosophilid Zaprionus indianus (Insecta, Diptera) (2010, methodology): “lanobis distances (Farber and Kadmon 2003).”
Variation in niche and distribution model performance: The need for a priori assessment of key causal factors (2012, methodology): “Strict presence-only methods like envelope or distance techniques (Busby et al., 1991; Hirzel et al., 2002; Farber and Kadmon, 2003) may be less affected by choice of reference region.”