The world's biogeographical regions: cluster analyses based on bat distributions

By Ş. Procheş. 2005

101 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c4e8c14fa19c8c9565dae694d114dffaa5e56a30

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

1. J. Morrone
2. M. Rodríguez
3. B. Hawkins
4. Walter Jetz
5. H. Kreft
6. Miguel B. Araújo
7. Marta Rueda
8. S. Berry

In Ecology

1. J. Morrone
2. M. Rodríguez
3. H. Kreft
4. Walter Jetz
5. B. Hawkins
6. Miguel B. Araújo
7. S. Berry
8. Tiffany Brown

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. H. Kreft
2. Walter Jetz
3. M. Rodríguez
4. Miguel B. Araújo
5. B. Hawkins
6. J. Morrone
7. Marta Rueda
8. P. Angermeier

Citations in the corpus

• The spectre of biogeographical regionalization (2018, methodology): “These biogeographical areas are commonly mapped as contiguous, in opposition to ecoregions, that are usually represented as discontinuous (Proches , 2005).”
• Identifying compartments in presence–absence matrices and bipartite networks: insights into modularity measures (2013, background): “For biogeographical research, Q2 addresses issues directly related to the analysis of species cooccurrences (Stone & Roberts, 1990) when the analysis is done on the species side, and to the delimitation of biogeographical units or regions (Procheş, 2005; Carstensen & Olesen, 2009) when the analysis ”
• Biogeography of Iberian freshwater fishes revisited: the roles of historical versus contemporary constraints (2009, background): “…groups of organisms (see Rabeni & Doisy, 2000; Abell et al., 2008), we recommend developing regions independently for distinctive taxonomic groups rather than assuming that one group adequately represents biogeographical patterns for all biota (see Procheş, 2005; Rodrigues & Brooks, 2007).”
• Towards a biogeographic regionalization of the European biota (2010, methodology): “conservation planning and management, and clustering procedures capable of capturing the spatial structure of species composition data are being used increasingly by conservation biologists as well as biogeographers (Procheş, 2005; Finnie et al., 2007; Heikinheimo et al., 2007; Mackey et al., 2008; ”
• Reconciling approaches to biogeographical regionalization: a systematic and generic framework examined with a case study of the Australian continent (2007, background): “…data (and other observation data on species presence and abundance) is enabling systematic spatial analyses of species richness and endemism for many plant and animal taxa at global, continental and regional scales (Myers et al., 2000; Crisp et al., 2001; Procheş, 2005; Slatyer et al., 2007).”
• Biogeographical regionalisation of the world: a reappraisal (2015, methodology): “Although transition zones have been discussed by several authors (Schmidt 1954; Darlington 1957; Müller 1986; Palestrini and Zunino 1986; Ruggiero and Ezcurra 2003; Procheş 2005; Riddle and Hafner 2010), their incorporation to a formal regionalisation of the world has been uncommon.”
• A framework for delineating biogeographical regions based on species distributions (2010, methodology): “Island Nearctic Palaearctic Neotropical Ethiopian Oriental Australian (a) North American Eurasian South American African Oriental Australian (c) (b) Nearctic Palearctic Neotropical”