Cited by 87

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

RangeShifter 2.0: an extended and enhanced platform for modelling spatial eco‐evolutionary dynamics and species' responses to environmental changes

Bocedi, Greta, Palmer, Stephen C. F., Malchow, Anne‐Kathleen, Zurell, Damaris, Watts, Kevin, Travis, Justin M. J.·2021·Ecography

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Process‐based models are becoming increasingly used tools for understanding how species are likely to respond to environmental changes and to potential management options. RangeShifter is one such modelling platform, which has been used to address a range of questions including identifying effective reintroduction strategies, understanding patterns of range expansion and assessing population viability of species across complex landscapes. Here we introduce a new version, RangeShifter 2.0, which incorporates important new functionality. It is now possible to simulate dynamics over user‐specified, temporally changing landscapes. Additionally, we integrated a new genetic module, notably introducing an explicit genetic modelling architecture, which allows for simulation of neutral and adaptive genetic processes. Furthermore, emigration, transfer and settlement traits can now all evolve, allowing for sophisticated simulation of the evolution of dispersal. We illustrate the potential application of RangeShifter 2.0's new functionality by two examples. The first illustrates the range expansion of a virtual species across a dynamically changing UK landscape. The second demonstrates how the software can be used to explore the concept of evolving connectivity in response to land‐use modification, by examining how movement rules come under selection over landscapes of different structure and composition. RangeShifter 2.0 is built using object‐oriented C++ providing computationally efficient simulation of complex individual‐based, eco‐evolutionary models. The code has been redeveloped to enable use across operating systems, including on high performance computing clusters, and the Windows graphical user interface has been enhanced. RangeShifter 2.0 will facilitate the development of in‐silico assessments of how species will respond to environmental changes and to potential management options for conserving or controlling them. By making the code available open source, we hope to inspire further collaborations and extensions by the ecological community.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/ecog.05687

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Pathwalker and other recent agent-based approaches like HexSim and RangeShifter combine the spatially-explicit approach of resistance-based algorithms with the detail and flexibility given to simulating movement behaviour enabled by agent-based modelling.

    “Pathwalker, and other recent agent-based approaches like HexSim and RangeShifter40,41, combine the spatially-explicit approach of resistance-based algorithms with the detail and flexibility given to simulating movement behaviour enabled by agent-based modelling.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 63

  1. 10.1111/1365-2664.12643 · DOI
  2. 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00242-6 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1111/ddi.12487 · DOI
  4. 10.1002/eap.2338 · DOI
  5. 10.1111/nyas.12211 · DOI
  6. 10.1111/ecog.01041 · DOI
  7. 10.1111/2041-210X.12162 · DOI
  8. 10.1111/ele.13348 · DOI
  9. 10.1111/ecog.02480 · DOI
  10. 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01267.x · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1016/j.tree.2017.08.011 · DOI
  12. 10.1111/ecog.02538 · DOI
  13. 10.1111/2041-210X.13460 · DOI
  14. 10.1007/s10530-020-02197-6 · DOI
  15. 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2011.02659.x · DOI
  16. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04678.x · DOI
  17. 10.1098/rspb.2013.1452 · DOI
  18. 10.1111/gcb.13935 · DOI
  19. 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00641.x · DOI
  20. 10.1111/ddi.12303 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/j.tree.2010.03.002 · DOI
  22. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl415 · DOI
  23. 10.1093/molbev/msy228 · DOI
  24. 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.09.028 · DOI
  25. 10.7717/peerj.228 · DOI
  26. 10.1086/688170 · DOI
  27. 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2017.10.010 · DOI
  28. 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.06023.x · DOI
  29. 10.1098/rspb.2019.1916 · DOI
  30. 10.1111/ecog.04680 · DOI
  31. 10.1111/2041-210X.12608 · DOI
  32. 10.1111/ecog.02537 · DOI
  33. 10.1111/brv.12475 · DOI
  34. 10.1111/2041-210X.12315 · DOI
  35. 10.1111/ecog.05689 · DOI
  36. 10.1046/j.1365-294X.1998.00362.x · DOI
  37. 10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.05.019 · DOI
  38. 10.1038/nclimate1588 · DOI
  39. 10.1111/2041-210X.12889 · DOI
  40. 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.03.035 · DOI
  41. 10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00073.x · DOI
  42. 10.1111/gcb.14562 · DOI
  43. 10.1111/brv.12356 · DOI
  44. 10.1111/gcb.13271 · DOI
  45. 10.1007/s10980-017-0605-9 · DOI · Paper page
  46. 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2012.02737.x · DOI
  47. 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.11.007 · DOI
  48. 10.1111/ddi.12460 · DOI
  49. 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.00574.x · DOI
  50. 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2015.06.004 · DOI
  51. 10.1007/s40823-016-0016-7 · DOI
  52. 10.1111/ecog.04039 · DOI
  53. 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108819 · DOI
  54. 10.1073/pnas.1911796116 · DOI
  55. 10.1111/ele.12104 · DOI
  56. 10.1002/wcc.585 · DOI
  57. 10.1111/j.1752-4571.2011.00208.x · DOI
  58. 10.1126/science.aad8466 · DOI
  59. 10.1086/704780 · DOI
  60. 10.1111/2041-210X.13354 · DOI
  61. 10.1111/ecog.04747 · DOI
  62. 10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1019:SSFLLI]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  63. 10.1111/gcb.13251 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Bocedi, G., Palmer, S. C. F., Malchow, A., Zurell, D., Watts, K., & Travis, J. M. J.
Affiliations
  • School of Biological Sciences, Univ. of Aberdeen Aberdeen UK
  • Univ. of Potsdam, Inst. of Biochemistry and Biology Potsdam Germany
  • Forest Research, Alice Holt Lodge Farnham Surrey UK
Venue
Ecography
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-08-29
Volume
44
Issue
10
Pages
1453-1462
ISSN
  • 0906-7590
  • 1600-0587
Cited by
87
References
3
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review