Species traits are associated with the quality of bioclimatic models

By J. Pöyry, Miska Luoto, Risto Heikkinen, K. Saarinen. 2008

108 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/962d981b9e57d43e54f2369c5d0df6bc0e656d68

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 performance of state-of-the-art modelling techniques depends on geographical distribution of species. (2009, background): “…techniques (Thuiller, 2003; Segurado and Araújo, 2004; Pearson et al., 2006; Heikkinen et al., 2007), a major problem in predictive modelling studies is to understand what attributes of species might affect model performance (McPherson et al., 2004; Luoto et al., 2005; Pöyry et al., 2008).”
Selecting traits that explain species–environment relationships: a generalized linear mixed model approach (2013, unknown): “Many empirical studies have shown that species traits are associated with habitat conditions (Pöyry et al. 2008, Townsend et al. 1997, Townsend et al. 1994) in accordance with the theory that species in the evolutionary process adapt to the habitat and landscape characteristics in which the species…”
Impact of the quality of climate models for modelling species occurrences in countries with poor climatic documentation: a case study from Bolivia (2010, background): “Pöyry et al. (2008) showed that inherent behavioural and mobility characteristics of the species under study may also have an effect on the predictive power of species distribution models.”
Assessing the vulnerability of European butterflies to climate change using multiple criteria (2010, methodology): “…based on the modelling technique adopted (Lawler et al. 2006; Pearson et al. 2006), the choice of future climate scenarios (Beaumont et al. 2007), and the life-history traits and geographical characteristics of the modelled species (Luoto et al. 2005; McPherson and Jetz 2007; Pöyry et al. 2008).”
Geographical patterns in prediction errors of species distribution models (2011, background): “, 2008), as well as with the degree of equilibrium with environmental conditions (Araújo & Pearson, 2005) and species traits (Pöyry et al., 2008; Hanspach et al., 2010).”
A case for incorporating phylogeography and landscape genetics into species distribution modelling approaches to improve climate adaptation and conservation planning (2010, background): “, 2008), species life history traits (Poyry et al., 2008), species interactions (Araujo & Luoto, 2007) and a consideration of evolutionary history (Rouget et al.”
Sampling bias and the use of ecological niche modeling in conservation planning: a field evaluation in a biodiversity hotspot (2010, background): “2004; Peterson and Nakazawa 2008), species traits (Poyry et al. 2008), biotic interactions (Araújo and Luoto 2007; Heikkinen et al.”
Contemporary climate change alters the pace and drivers of extinction (2011, background): “Distributions of butterflies in Finland were modeled more accurately for species with low mobility and inhabiting rocky outcrops (Pöyry et al., 2008).”
Improving species distribution models for climate change studies: variable selection and scale (2011, methodology): “…is, however, rising concern at how SDMs are being used to predict the impact of climate change on biodiversity (Heikkinen et al., 2006; Beale et al., 2008; Jeschke & Strayer, 2008; Luoto & Heikkinen, 2008; Morin & Lechowicz, 2008; Pöyry et al., 2008; Randin et al., 2009; Willis & Bhagwat, 2009).”
The bioclimatic envelope of the wolverine (Gulo gulo): do climatic constraints limit its geographic distribution? (2010, background): “…sometimes criticized because they fail to account for interactions with biotic factors (Davis et al. 1998; Pearson and Dawson 2003; Heikkinen et al. 2006; Post et al. 2009) and may not accurately reflect the ecology, behavior, or physiology of the target species (Soberón 2007; Pöyry et al. 2008).”
Increasing range mismatching of interacting species under global change is related to their ecological characteristics (2012, background): “, 1998; Pearson & Dawson, 2003), and a number of uncertainties remain to be considered (Luoto et al., 2005; Heikkinen et al., 2006; Pöyry et al., 2008).”
Species traits explain recent range shifts of Finnish butterflies (2009, background): “(11) The breadth of habitat use of adult butterflies was classified as an ordered categorical variable ranging from 1 to 3 (Pöyry et al., 2008).”