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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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.”
From Connectivity modelling in conservation science: a comparative evaluation (2022) · cites this paper as [41]
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
Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction
Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R., Barnosky, A. D., García, A., Pringle, R. M., & Palmer, T. M. (2015) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.1400253 · Cited by 4,220
Accelerating extinction risk from climate change
Urban, M. C. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaa4984 · Cited by 2,436
Ecological time lags and the journey towards conservation success
Watts, K., Whytock, R. C., Park, K. J., Fuentes-Montemayor, E., Macgregor, N. A., Duffield, S., & McGowan, P. J. K. (2020) · Nature Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1038/s41559-019-1087-8 · Cited by 185
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 63
- 10.1111/1365-2664.12643 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00242-6 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/ddi.12487 · DOI
- 10.1002/eap.2338 · DOI
- 10.1111/nyas.12211 · DOI
- 10.1111/ecog.01041 · DOI
- 10.1111/2041-210X.12162 · DOI
- 10.1111/ele.13348 · DOI
- 10.1111/ecog.02480 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01267.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.tree.2017.08.011 · DOI
- 10.1111/ecog.02538 · DOI
- 10.1111/2041-210X.13460 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10530-020-02197-6 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2011.02659.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04678.x · DOI
- 10.1098/rspb.2013.1452 · DOI
- 10.1111/gcb.13935 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00641.x · DOI
- 10.1111/ddi.12303 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.tree.2010.03.002 · DOI
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl415 · DOI
- 10.1093/molbev/msy228 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.09.028 · DOI
- 10.7717/peerj.228 · DOI
- 10.1086/688170 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2017.10.010 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.06023.x · DOI
- 10.1098/rspb.2019.1916 · DOI
- 10.1111/ecog.04680 · DOI
- 10.1111/2041-210X.12608 · DOI
- 10.1111/ecog.02537 · DOI
- 10.1111/brv.12475 · DOI
- 10.1111/2041-210X.12315 · DOI
- 10.1111/ecog.05689 · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1365-294X.1998.00362.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.05.019 · DOI
- 10.1038/nclimate1588 · DOI
- 10.1111/2041-210X.12889 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.03.035 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00073.x · DOI
- 10.1111/gcb.14562 · DOI
- 10.1111/brv.12356 · DOI
- 10.1111/gcb.13271 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10980-017-0605-9 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2012.02737.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.11.007 · DOI
- 10.1111/ddi.12460 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.00574.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2015.06.004 · DOI
- 10.1007/s40823-016-0016-7 · DOI
- 10.1111/ecog.04039 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108819 · DOI
- 10.1073/pnas.1911796116 · DOI
- 10.1111/ele.12104 · DOI
- 10.1002/wcc.585 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1752-4571.2011.00208.x · DOI
- 10.1126/science.aad8466 · DOI
- 10.1086/704780 · DOI
- 10.1111/2041-210X.13354 · DOI
- 10.1111/ecog.04747 · DOI
- 10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1019:SSFLLI]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
- 10.1111/gcb.13251 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Connectivity modelling in conservation science: a comparative evaluation
Unnithan Kumar, S., & Cushman, S. A. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-20370-w · Cited by 83
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