Effects of global climate change on geographic distributions of Mexican Cracidae

By A. Townsend Peterson, V. Sánchez‐Cordero, Jorge Soberón, J. Bartley, R. Buddemeier, Adolfo G. Navarro‐Sigüenza. 2001

223 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Although climate change and its implications are a frequent subject of detailed study, the effects of these changes on species’ geographic distributions remain little explored. We present a first cross-species analysis of the effects of global climate change on the distributions of one bird family, the Cracidae, in Mexico, based on projecting models of ecological niches from present conditions to modeled future conditions taken from general circulation models of climate change. Based on two different scenarios of climate change and on three assumptions regarding species’ dispersal abilities, effects on species’ distributions range from drastic reduction to modest increases. These results illustrate the complex nature of species’ geographic responses to environmental change, and emphasize the need for detailed analysis of individual species’ ecological requirements. © 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a41843351013d9aaa93ab069dc0fc138e0fb5f5e

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

INTERPRETATION OF MODELS OF FUNDAMENTAL ECOLOGICAL NICHES AND SPECIES' DISTRIBUTIONAL AREAS (2005, background): “For example, Peterson et al. (2001) assumed that species under study were sampled well at the level of biogeographic provinces.”
Ecological niche modelling and prioritizing areas for species reintroductions (2006, methodology): “5 ̊ spatial resolution using methods described elsewhere (Peterson et al., 2001).”
Evaluating predictive models of species’ distributions: criteria for selecting optimal models (2003, background): “GARP has proven especially successful in predicting species’ potential distributions under a wide variety of situations (Peterson and Cohoon, 1999; Peterson et al., 1999, 2001, 2002a, b,c; Godown and Peterson, 2000; Sanchez-Cordero and Mart´ onez-Meyer, 2000; Peterson, 2001; Elith and Burgman, 2002”
Real vs. artefactual absences in species distributions: tests for Oryzomys albigularis (Rodentia: Muridae) in Venezuela (2003, background): “…a wide variety of conditions and is especially suited to use with presence-only occurrence data (Stockwell & Noble, 1992; Peterson & Cohoon, 1999; Peterson et al., 1999, 2001, 2002a,b,c,d; Stockwell & Peters, 1999; Chen & Peterson, 2000; Elith, 2000; Godown & Peterson, 2000; Sánchez-Cordero &…”
BIOMOD – optimizing predictions of species distributions and projecting potential future shifts under global change (2003, methodology): “For instance, genetic algorithms as used by Peterson and co-workers (Stockwell & Peters, 1999; Peterson et al. , 2001, 2002a) could be integrated into this framework to cover an even larger spectrum of modelling techniques.”
Modeling species’ geographic distributions for preliminary conservation assessments: an implementation with the spiny pocket mice (Heteromys) of Ecuador (2004, background): “In contrast to the present case, vegetational coverages are not always necessary for distributional modeling or model-processing (Peterson et al., 2001, 2002d).”
Uses and requirements of ecological niche models and related distributional models (2006, background): “These projections, under assumptions made fairly explicit, provide hypotheses of species’ potential geographic distributions and how they will change over the next few decades of evolving world climates, and this field has now seen extensive activity (Araújo et al. 2005a; Araújo et al. 2006; Berry e”
Applications and limitations of museum data for conservation and ecology, with particular attention to species distribution models (2010, methodology): “Among the many studies that have used this approach, several have used museum records to fit the models (Iverson et al., 1999; Peterson et al., 2001; 2002; Bakkenes et al., 2002; Miles et al., 2004; Hole et al., 2009).”
Using niche-based GIS modeling to test geographic predictions of competitive exclusion and competitive release in South American pocket mice (2002, background): “…distributions (Peterson and Cohoon 1999, Peterson et al. 1999, Chen and Peterson 2000, Godown and Peterson 2000, Sánchez- Cordero and Martínez-Meyer 2000, Peterson 2001, Peterson and Vieglais 2001, Peterson et al. 2001, Anderson et al. 2002, Stockwell and Peterson 2002, Peterson et al. 2002).”
Ecological niches as stable distributional constraints on mammal species, with implications for Pleistocene extinctions and climate change projections for biodiversity (2004, background): “…potential geographical distributions (Carey & Brown, 1994; Huntley et al ., 1995; Johnston & Schmitz, 1997; Kadmon & Heller, 1998; Price, 2000; Peterson et al ., 2001; Bakkenes et al ., 2002; Berry et al ., 2002; Erasmus et al ., 2002; Midgely et al ., 2002; Peterson et al ., 2002b; Pearson &…”
SEASONAL NICHES OF NEARCTIC-NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRDS: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF MIGRATION (2004, background): “Those models can also be projected onto alternative landscapes, such as another continent, to predict species invasions (Peterson and Vieglais 2001), or onto another climate regime to predict climate-change eff ects (Peterson et al. 2001, 2002b).”
The effects of climate change on tropical birds (2012, background): “Anciaes and Peterson (2009) used ecological niche modeling (Peterson et al., 2001) to model manakins’ ecological niches, based on these birds’ present distributions and climatic prefer-”