The geographic scaling of biotic interactions

By Miguel B. Araújo, Alejandro Rozenfeld. 2013

306 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d09e2f4357b946dde10e3f9668f54fbb4b177481

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Empirical Evidence for the Scale Dependence of Biotic Interactions (2015, background): “These patterns reinforce the simulation results of Araujo & Rozenfeld (2014), who found positive interactions, such as mutualism, to be important across grains but competition only important at fine grains.”
How to make more out of community data? A conceptual framework and its implementation as models and software. (2017, background): “In general, biotic interactions are likely to be more important at the finest scales, where species physically meet, whereas environmental covariates (such as macroclimate and soil types) are likely to be more important at broader scales (Ara ujo & Rozenfeld 2014).”
Dos and don'ts when inferring assembly rules from diversity patterns (2020, background): “…al., 2015) and the fine-scale spatial arrangement of individuals (Diekmann, Law & Metz, 2000), can lead to the underlying processes being overlooked because their effects may not scale up to large-scale diversity patterns (Araujo & Rozenfeld, 2014; Thuiller et al., 2010; Turcotte & Levine, 2016).”
Trait matching and phylogeny as predictors of predator–prey interactions involving ground beetles (2018, background): “Species interactions influence species distributions at small and large spatial scale (Araújo & Rozenfeld 2014) which in turn have consequences for local ecological processes (Bartomeus et al. 2016).”
Disentangling biotic interactions, environmental filters, and dispersal limitation as drivers of species co‐occurrence (2018, methodology): “The approaches such as the Classic framework, SDM framework and JSDMs improve our understanding of how species interactions, habitat filtering, and dispersal limitation affect species associations and range limits (Araújo and Rozenfeld 2014, Morueta-Holme et al. 2016).”
A network approach for inferring species associations from co-occurrence data (2016, methodology): “2014) to predict the composition of local communities, but need to take species associations into account (Araújo and Rozenfeld 2014) – whether driven by biotic interactions, dispersal, or local environmental filtering.”
When and how should biotic interactions be considered in models of species niches and distributions? (2017, methodology): “Despite these advances, consideration of biotic interactions constitutes an outstanding problem even for single-species correlative models (Ara ujo & Guisan, 2006; Ara ujo & Luoto, 2007; Holt, 2009; Hellmann et al., 2012; Anderson, 2013; Ara ujo & Rozenfeld, 2014).”
Co-occurrence is not evidence of ecological interactions. (2020, methodology): “While the problem of sampling scale in co-occurrence studies has been raised early in the literature (Michael, 1920), biogeographers still investigate this technical but central topic (Ara ujo & Rozenfeld, 2014; Thuiller et al., 2015; Belmaker et al., 2015; Bar-Massada et al., 2018).”
Do joint species distribution models reliably detect interspecific interactions from co‐occurrence data in homogenous environments? (2018, methodology): “However, a recent study by Araújo and Rozenfeld (2014) showed that range overlaps of species pairs resulting from A cc ep te d A rt ic ‘This article is protected by copyright.”
Testing species assemblage predictions from stacked and joint species distribution models (2019, background): “Previous studies have shown that the signal of competitive interactions is more easily lost at in‐ creasingly coarser resolution than the signal of facilitative interac‐ tions (Araújo & Rozenfeld, 2014; Zurell et al., 2018).”
Potential of remote sensing to predict species invasions (2015, unknown): “For example, according to Araujo and Rozenfeld (2014), given two species sp1 and sp2, the probability of co-occurrence (spatial overlap) is given by Pðsp1 \ sp2Þ ¼ fðpsp1; psp2; Isp1sp2Þ ð1Þ where p ¼ probability of occurrence and I ¼ interaction between species.”
Mechanistic and Correlative Models of Ecological Niches (2015, background): “Indeed, positive interactions may even open up additional distributional possibilities beyond the limits of A (Araújo & Rozenfeld 2014), as has been suggested for positive interactions among species in increasingly harsh environmental conditions (Bertness & Callaway 1994; Bruno et al. 2003), but…”