Understanding (insect) species distributions across spatial scales

By Joaquín Hortal, N. Roura‐Pascual, N. Sanders, C. Rahbek. 2010

210 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/9d08d400789eb7e888ee0b3cdb7280d91803f126

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

Plant pathogens, insect pests and weeds in a changing global climate: a review of approaches, challenges, research gaps, key studies and concepts (2012, background): “In addition, a better understanding of the species distribution across spatial scales is important for projections (Hortal et al. 2010).”
Climatic niche shifts between species' native and naturalized ranges raise concern for ecological forecasts during invasions and climate change (2014, background): “Research based on current native distributions has concluded that species distributions correlate with climatic conditions more strongly than with other factors, at least at coarse spatial resolutions (Thuiller et al., 2004; Luoto et al., 2007; Hortal et al., 2010).”
Defying the curse of ignorance: perspectives in insect macroecology and conservation biogeography (2010, background): “Because of the complexity of the processes, their interactions and emergent properties, up-scaling processes known to act at local scales will usually fail to explain broadscale patterns (Hortal et al., 2010).”
The spatial scaling of beta diversity (2013, background): “Table 1 A variety of different occupancy, bionomic and biogeographic factors are suggested to drive beta diversity at different spatial scales (Whittaker et al., 2001; Ricklefs, 2004; Hortal et al., 2010).”
Climatic niche at physiological and macroecological scales: the thermal tolerance–geographical range interface and niche dimensionality (2014, background): “…recent and historical factors, particularly biotic interactions and constraints to movement (i.e. biogeographical processes and occupancy dynamics; Hortal et al., 2010) that make up the realized niche (i.e. the BAM diagram of Soberón & Peterson, 2005; see Soberón, 2007; Soberón & Nakamura, 2009;…”
Using species distribution models in paleobiogeography: A matter of data, predictors and concepts (2011, background): “…factors, biotic interactions and historical and populational processes may also constrain species distributions (Araújo and Pearson, 2005; Lobo et al., 2006; Araújo and Luoto, 2007; Soberón, 2007, 2010; Beale et al., 2008; Jimenez-Valverde et al., 2008; Peterson et al., 2009; Hortal et al., 2010).”
Dispersal ability rather than ecological tolerance drives differences in range size between lentic and lotic water beetles (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae) (2012, background): “…can be seen with movement-related factors, which at biogeographical scale have a significant effect on the large-scale processes that determine the size and shape of species distributional ranges, while occupancy dynamics are relevant at smaller scales within the landscape (Hortal et al., 2010).”
Variation in niche and distribution model performance: The need for a priori assessment of key causal factors (2012, background): “, 2011) or occupancy dynamics (white circles) within completely suitable and accessible areas (Hortal et al., 2010).”