Reconciling approaches to biogeographical regionalization: a systematic and generic framework examined with a case study of the Australian continent

148 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Towards a biogeographic regionalization of the European biota (2010, methodology): “Southwood (1988; see also Mackey et al., 2008) classified habitats with respect to three axes: (1) habitat productivity as a measure of potential growth, (2) habitat resource stability, and (3) adversity or stress.”
A framework for delineating biogeographical regions based on species distributions (2010, background): “Akin to taxonomy seeking to group species into higher taxa, a central aim in biogeography is to classify the world’s biota into meaningful geographical units for analysis (Hengeveld, 1990; Lomolino et al., 2006; Mackey et al., 2008; Escalante, 2009).”
The partitioning of Africa: statistically defined biogeographical regions in sub‐Saharan Africa (2012, background): “The capacity to digitize and analyse large amounts of species distribution data now allows a quantitative and a more rigorous biogeographical analysis, not only of single groups (see Mackey et al., 2008; Kreft & Jetz, 2010) but also across groups.”