Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Bioclimate envelope models: what they detect and what they hide — response to Hampe (2004)

Bioclimate envelope models: what they detect and what they hide — response to Hampe (2004) We welcome the informative contribution from Hampe (2004 ) to what is an ongoing and important debate. Indeed, the importance of assessing the usefulness of the BEM approach has been exemplified by a recent high‐profile application of the approach by Thomas . (2004 ). Our review ( Pearson & Dawson, 2003 ) aimed to present a balanced, although inevitably not exhaustive, appraisal of bioclimate envelope models (BEM) and we agree with a number of the additional points raised by Hampe (2004 ). Many of the matters raised are currently being investigated by a number of researchers working to test existing methods and develop new, improved approaches. We wish to make a few additional comments here. We reiterate that BEM do indeed ignore the constraints that limited dispersal may have on future distributions ( Pearson & Dawson, 2003 ; Hampe, 2004 ). Investigating the potential for species to disperse at sufficient rates to keep pace with their moving bioclimate envelopes is a lively area of research (e.g. Higgins & Richardson, 1999 ; Collingham & Huntley, 2000 ; Higgins ., 2003a ) and one which builds on the foundations of BEM. The models used in these studies are highly stochastic http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Global Ecology and Biogeography Wiley

Bioclimate envelope models: what they detect and what they hide — response to Hampe (2004)

Download PDF
8 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/bioclimate-envelope-models-what-they-detect-and-what-they-hide-PRox8AdWMg

References (35)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
1466-822X
eISSN
1466-8238
DOI
10.1111/j.1466-822X.2004.00112.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

We welcome the informative contribution from Hampe (2004 ) to what is an ongoing and important debate. Indeed, the importance of assessing the usefulness of the BEM approach has been exemplified by a recent high‐profile application of the approach by Thomas . (2004 ). Our review ( Pearson & Dawson, 2003 ) aimed to present a balanced, although inevitably not exhaustive, appraisal of bioclimate envelope models (BEM) and we agree with a number of the additional points raised by Hampe (2004 ). Many of the matters raised are currently being investigated by a number of researchers working to test existing methods and develop new, improved approaches. We wish to make a few additional comments here. We reiterate that BEM do indeed ignore the constraints that limited dispersal may have on future distributions ( Pearson & Dawson, 2003 ; Hampe, 2004 ). Investigating the potential for species to disperse at sufficient rates to keep pace with their moving bioclimate envelopes is a lively area of research (e.g. Higgins & Richardson, 1999 ; Collingham & Huntley, 2000 ; Higgins ., 2003a ) and one which builds on the foundations of BEM. The models used in these studies are highly stochastic

Journal

Global Ecology and Biogeography – Wiley

Published: Sep 1, 2004

There are no references for this article.