Realized and potential climate niches: a comparison of four Rhododendron tree species

By O. Vetaas. 2002

209 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/95d596d2538ae2b7b3aa2af66cfaf6d5f51016d4

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

The role of biotic interactions in shaping distributions and realised assemblages of species: implications for species distribution modelling (2012, background): “The ability of some plants to grow and reproduce in botanical gardens under other climatic conditions has also been interpreted to suggest that biotic interactions restrict their natural distributions (Vetaas, 2002), although the role of other factors in such studies often cannot be fully disentangl”
Fern species richness along a central Himalayan elevational gradient, Nepal (2004, background): “Mid-elevation peak in species richness Fern richness varies strongly with elevation in Nepal as has been observed for flowering plants (Grytnes & Vetaas, 2002).”
Variation in plant species richness of different life forms along a subtropical elevation gradient in the Himalayas, east Nepal (2003, background): “99), where PET is linearly related to MAT (Lambert & Chitrakar, 1989) and the steepness of the regression slope depends on the season, and it’s lapse rate (Vetaas, 2002).”
Habitat suitability modelling and niche theory (2008, background): “Indeed, many country- or continent-wide models achieve good accuracy of prediction when based on climatic variables only (Pearson et al . 2002; Vetaas 2002).”
Importance of abiotic stress as a range‐limit determinant for European plants: insights from species responses to climatic gradients (2009, background): “Similarly, abiotic stress appears to determine the upper-altitudinal range limit for some mountainous plant species, while biotic interactions may determine the lower limit (Guisan et al ., 1998; Bruelheide & Scheidel, 1999; Vetaas, 2002).”
Biotic and abiotic variables show little redundancy in explaining tree species distributions (2010, background): “…often thought to mainly constrain species distributions at equatorial/lower limits, while positive biotic interactions and abiotic factors are expected being the dominant determinants of poleward/ upper range limits (MacArthur 1972, Brown et al. 1996, Loehle 1998, Vetaas 2002, Normand et al. 2009).”
Assessing species climatic requirements beyond the realized niche: some lessons mainly from tree species distribution modelling (2017, background): “Guisan and Thuiller (2005) briefly mention the use of data from botanical gardens and arboreta, as well as natural distributions, by Vetaas (2002).”
Interspecific variation in soil compaction sensitivity among forest floor species (2004, methodology): “GAM regression has been used in numerous studies of speciesenvironment relationships (e.g., Bio et al., 1998; Austin, 1999; Guisan and Zimmermann, 2000; Vetaas, 2002) and was chosen because it does not assume any general shape of the response prior to the estimation (Austin and Meyers, 1996).”
Transient facilitative effects of heather on Scots pine along a grazing disturbance gradient in Scottish moorland (2006, background): “1998; Vetaas 2002), whilst positive interactions may enhance an individual’s or species’ ability to survive and thereby promote diversity (see reviews by Bertness & Callaway 1994; Brooker & Callaghan 1998; Bruno et al .”
Disentangling biotic interactions, environmental filters, and dispersal limitation as drivers of species co‐occurrence (2018, background): “…worldwide, in common garden experiments or in reciprocal transplant experiments at different elevations would be helpful to further clarify the process (Anderson et al. 1996, Vetaas 2002, Hautier et al. 2009), but such data is currently not available for nearly all of the species considered here.”
Soil nutritional factors improve models of plant species distribution: an illustration with Acer campestre (L.) in France (2006, background): “…of soil nutritional variables Few studies have addressed the need to incorporate edaphic variables when modelling species distributions over large spatial extents and most recently published papers have modelled the distribution of plant species with climatic variables alone (e.g. Vetaas, 2002).”