Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
R. Heikkinen, M. Luoto, M. Kuussaari, J. Pöyry (2005)
New insights into butterfly–environment relationships using partitioning methodsProceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 272
Jerald Johnson, Kristian Omland (2004)
Model selection in ecology and evolution.Trends in ecology & evolution, 19 2
M. Araújo, R. Whittaker, R. Ladle, M. Erhard (2005)
Reducing uncertainty in projections of extinction risk from climate changeGlobal Ecology and Biogeography, 14
M. Araújo, A. Guisan (2006)
Five (or so) challenges for species distribution modellingJournal of Biogeography, 33
A. Guisan, W. Thuiller (2005)
Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models.Ecology letters, 8 9
M. Huston (1999)
Local processes and regional patterns : appropriate scales for understanding variation in the diversity of plants and animalsOikos, 86
R. Whittaker, K. Willis, Richard Field (2001)
Scale and species richness: towards a general, hierarchical theory of species diversityJournal of Biogeography, 28
R. Julliard, J. Clavel, V. Devictor, F. Jiguet, D. Couvet (2006)
Spatial segregation of specialists and generalists in bird communities.Ecology letters, 9 11
R. Hickling, D. Roy, J. Hill, R. Fox, C. Thomas (2006)
The distributions of a wide range of taxonomic groups are expanding polewardsGlobal Change Biology, 12
L. Venier, J. Pearce, J. McKee, D. McKenney, G. Niemi (2004)
Climate and satellite‐derived land cover for predicting breeding bird distribution in the Great Lakes BasinJournal of Biogeography, 31
M. Stone (1977)
An Asymptotic Equivalence of Choice of Model by Cross‐Validation and Akaike's CriterionJournal of the royal statistical society series b-methodological, 39
(1999)
SPSS base system + advanced statistics + user’s guide
D. Schröter, W. Cramer, R. Leemans, I. Prentice, M. Araújo, N. Arnell, A. Bondeau, H. Bugmann, T. Carter, C. Gracia, A. Vega-Leinert, M. Erhard, F. Ewert, M. Glendining, J. House, S. Kankaanpää, Richard Klein, S. Lavorel, M. Lindner, M. Metzger, J. Meyer, T. Mitchell, I. Reginster, M. Rounsevell, S. Sabaté, S. Sitch, Ben Smith, Jo Smith, Pete Smith, M. Sykes, K. Thonicke, W. Thuiller, G. Tuck, S. Zaehle, B. Zierl (2005)
Ecosystem Service Supply and Vulnerability to Global Change in EuropeScience, 310
A. Lehmann, J. Overton, J. Leathwick (2002)
GRASP: generalized regression analysis and spatial predictionEcological Modelling, 157
(1995)
Macroecology. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
K. Klanderud, Ørjan Totland (2005)
SIMULATED CLIMATE CHANGE ALTERED DOMINANCE HIERARCHIES AND DIVERSITY OF AN ALPINE BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOTEcology, 86
I. Hiscock (1970)
Communities and EcosystemsThe Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 43
J. Grego (2006)
Generalized Additive Models
R. Macarthur (1974)
Mathematical Ecology and Its Place among the Sciences. (Book Reviews: Geographical Ecology. Patterns in the Distribution of Species)Science
L. Holdridge (1947)
Determination of World Plant Formations From Simple Climatic Data.Science, 105 2727
A. Peterson, Lisa Ball, Kevin Cohoon (2002)
Predicting distributions of Mexican birds using ecological niche modelling methodsIbis, 144
W. Thuiller, S. Lavorel, M. Araújo, M. Sykes, I. Prentice (2005)
Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102 23
Canran Liu, P. Berry, T. Dawson, R. Pearson (2005)
Selecting thresholds of occurrence in the prediction of species distributionsEcography, 28
A. Fielding, J. Bell (1997)
A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence modelsEnvironmental Conservation, 24
J. Leathwick (2002)
Intra-generic competition among Nothofagus in New Zealand's primary indigenous forestsBiodiversity & Conservation, 11
T. Blackburn, K. Gaston (1998)
Some Methodological Issues in MacroecologyThe American Naturalist, 151
C. Parmesan, N. Ryrholm, C. Stefanescu, J. Hill, C. Thomas, H. Descimon, B. Huntley, L. Kaila, J. Kullberg, T. Tammaru, W. Tennent, Jeremy Thomas, M. Warren (1999)
Poleward shifts in geographical ranges of butterfly species associated with regional warmingNature, 399
I. Prentice, W. Cramer, S. Harrison, R. Leemans, R. Monserud, A. Solomon (1992)
A global biome model based on plant physiology and dominance, soil properties and climateJournal of Biogeography, 19
M. Luoto, R. Heikkinen, J. Pöyry, K. Saarinen (2006)
Determinants of the biogeographical distribution of butterflies in boreal regionsJournal of Biogeography, 33
(1972)
Altas Florae Europaeae. The Committee for Mapping the Flora of Europe and Societas Biologica Fennica Vanamo, Helsinki
J. Leathwick, M. Austin (2001)
COMPETITIVE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN TREE SPECIES IN NEW ZEALAND'S OLD‐GROWTH INDIGENOUS FORESTSEcology, 82
H. Baker (1970)
Evolution in the TropicsBiotropica, 2
Justin Travis, Rob Brooker, C. Dytham (2005)
The interplay of positive and negative species interactions across an environmental gradient: insights from an individual-based simulation modelBiology Letters, 1
N. Oreskes (1998)
Evaluation (not validation) of quantitative models.Environmental Health Perspectives, 106
B. Huntley, W. Cramer, A. Morgan, H. Prentice, J. Allen (1997)
Past and future rapid environmental changes : the spatial and evolutionary responses of terrestrial biota
R. Callaway, R. Brooker, P. Choler, Z. Kikvidze, C. Lortie, R. Michalet, L. Paolini, F. Pugnaire, B. Newingham, Erik Aschehoug, Erik Aschehoug, C. Armas, D. Kikodze, B. Cook (2002)
Positive interactions among alpine plants increase with stressNature, 417
J. Hill, C. Thomas, B. Huntley (1999)
Climate and habitat availability determine 20th century changes in a butterfly's range marginProceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 266
W. Thuiller, M. Araújo, S. Lavorel (2004)
Do we need land‐cover data to model species distributions in Europe?Journal of Biogeography, 31
I. Hodkinson (1999)
Species response to global environmental change or why ecophysiological models are important: a reply to Davis et al.Journal of Animal Ecology, 68
R. Maggini, A. Lehmann, N. Zimmermann, A. Guisan (2006)
Improving generalized regression analysis for the spatial prediction of forest communitiesJournal of Biogeography, 33
M. Araújo, R. Pearson, W. Thuiller, M. Erhard (2005)
Validation of species–climate impact models under climate changeGlobal Change Biology, 11
N. Gotelli, B. McGill (2006)
Null Versus Neutral Models: What's The Difference?Ecography, 29
G. Schwarz (1978)
Estimating the Dimension of a ModelAnnals of Statistics, 6
(1985)
Butterflies of Europe. Aula-Verlag, Wiesbaden
N. Nakicenovic, J. Alcamo, Ged Davis, B. Vries, J. Fenhann, S. Gaffin, K. Gregory, A. Grubler, T. Jung, T. Kram, E. Rovere, L. Michaelis, S. Mori, T. Morita, W. Pepper, Hugh Pitcher, L. Price, K. Riahi, A. Roehrl, H. Rogner, Alexei Sankovski, M. Schlesinger, P. Shukla, Steven Smith, R. Swart, S. Rooijen, Nadejda Victor, Z. Dadi (2000)
Special report on emissions scenarios : a special report of Working group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
R. Heikkinen, M. Luoto, M. Araújo, Raimo Virkkala, W. Thuiller, M. Sykes (2006)
Methods and uncertainties in bioclimatic envelope modelling under climate changeProgress in Physical Geography, 30
R. Monserud, R. Leemans (1992)
Comparing global vegetation maps with the Kappa statisticEcological Modelling, 62
M. New, M. Hulme, P. Jones (2000)
Representing Twentieth-Century Space-Time Climate Variability. Part II: Development of 1901-96 Monthly Grids of Terrestrial Surface ClimateJournal of Climate, 13
H. Akaike (1974)
A new look at the statistical model identificationIEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19
R. Wilson, D. Gutiérrez, J. Gutiérrez, D. Martínez, R. Agudo, V. Monserrat (2005)
Changes to the elevational limits and extent of species ranges associated with climate change.Ecology letters, 8 11
D. Gutiérrez, P. Fernández, A. Seymour, D. Jordano (2005)
HABITAT DISTRIBUTION MODELS: ARE MUTUALIST DISTRIBUTIONS GOOD PREDICTORS OF THEIR ASSOCIATES?Ecological Applications, 15
M. Luoto, M. Kuussaari, H. Rita, Jere Salminen, T. Bonsdorff (2001)
Determinants of distribution and abundance in the clouded apollo butterfly: a landscape ecological approachEcography, 24
R. Anderson, A. Peterson, Marcela Gómez‐Laverde, R. Anderson, A. Peterson, Gó Mez-Laverde (2002)
Using niche-based GIS modeling to test geographic predictions of competitive exclusion and competitive release in South American pocket miceOikos, 98
A. Davis, J. Lawton, B. Shorrocks, L. Jenkinson (1998)
Individualistic species responses invalidate simple physiological models of community dynamics under global environmental changeJournal of Animal Ecology, 67
K. Gaston, T. Blackburn (1999)
A critique for macroecologyOikos, 84
(1999)
From dot maps to bitmaps – Atlas Florae Europaeae goes digital
M. Araújo, M. New (2007)
Ensemble forecasting of species distributions.Trends in ecology & evolution, 22 1
Richard Pearson, Terence Dawson (2003)
Predicting the impacts of climate change on the distribution of species: are bioclimate envelope models useful?Global Ecology and Biogeography, 12
T. Mitchell, T. Carter, P. Jones, M. Hulme (2004)
A comprehensive set of high-resolution grids of monthly climate for Europe and the globe: the observed record (1901-2000) and 16 scenarios (2001-2100).
M. Araújo, W. Thuiller, R. Pearson (2006)
Climate warming and the decline of amphibians and reptiles in EuropeJournal of Biogeography, 33
P. Berry, T. Dawson, P. Harrison, R. Pearson (2002)
Modelling potential impacts of climate change on the bioclimatic envelope of species in Britain and IrelandGlobal Ecology and Biogeography, 11
R. Pearson, T. Dawson, Canran Liu (2004)
Modelling species distributions in Britain: a hierarchical integration of climate and land-cover dataEcography, 27
Aim There is a debate as to whether biotic interactions exert a dominant role in governing species distributions at macroecological scales. The prevailing idea is that climate is the key limiting factor; thus models that use present‐day climate–species range relationships are expected to provide reasonable means to quantify the impacts of climate change on species distributions. However, there is little empirical evidence that biotic interactions would not constrain species distributions at macroecological scales. We examine this idea, for the first time, and provide tests for two null hypotheses: (H0 1) – biotic interactions do not exert a significant role in explaining current distributions of a particular species of butterfly (clouded Apollo, Parnassius mnemosyne) in Europe; and (H0 2) – biotic interactions do not exert a significant role in predictions of altered species’ ranges under climate change.
Global Ecology and Biogeography – Wiley
Published: Nov 1, 2007
Keywords: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.