The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The geographic scaling of biotic interactions
Open accessAbstract
A central tenet of ecology and biogeography is that the broad outlines of species ranges are determined by climate, whereas the effects of biotic interactions are manifested at local scales. While the first proposition is supported by ample evidence, the second is still a matter of controversy. To address this question, we develop a mathematical model that predicts the spatial overlap, i.e. co‐occurrence, between pairs of species subject to all possible types of interactions. We then identify the scale of resolution in which predicted range overlaps are lost. We found that co‐occurrence arising from positive interactions, such as mutualism (+/+) and commensalism (+/0), are manifested across scales. Negative interactions, such as competition (−/−) and amensalism (−/0), generate checkerboard patterns of co‐occurrence that are discernible at finer resolutions but that are lost and increasing scales of resolution. Scale dependence in consumer–resource interactions (+/−) depends on the strength of positive dependencies between species. If the net positive effect is greater than the net negative effect, then interactions scale up similarly to positive interactions. Our results challenge the widely held view that climate alone is sufficient to characterize species distributions at broad scales, but also demonstrate that the spatial signature of competition is unlikely to be discernible beyond local and regional scales.
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.
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
Hutchinson, G. E. (1957) · Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology · doi:10.1101/sqb.1957.022.01.039 · Cited by 6,228
Pearson, R. G., & Dawson, T. P. (2003) · Global Ecology and Biogeography · doi:10.1046/j.1466-822x.2003.00042.x · Cited by 4,252
Global Warming, Elevational Range Shifts, and Lowland Biotic Attrition in the Wet Tropics
Colwell, R. K., Brehm, G., Cardelús, C. L., Gilman, A. C., & Longino, J. T. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1162547 · Cited by 1,375
Gray Wolves as Climate Change Buffers in Yellowstone
Wilmers, C. C., & Getz, W. M. (2005) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030092 · Cited by 211 · cited 2×
“2007), predation (Wilmers and Getz 2005), herbivory (Post 2012) and parasitism (Araújo and Luoto 2007) could significantly affect species ranges and/or species responses to climate change.”
BackgroundResult
Cited by
Testing species assemblage predictions from stacked and joint species distribution models
Zurell, D., Zimmermann, N. E., Gross, H., Baltensweiler, A., Sattler, T., & Wüest, R. O. (2020) · Journal of Biogeography · doi:10.1111/jbi.13608 · Cited by 153
Metadata
- Authors
- Araújo, M. B., & Rozenfeld, A.
- Venue
- Ecography
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-01-03
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 406-415
- ISSN
- 0906-7590 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0587
- OpenAlex
- W2138905115
- Cited by
- 326
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 28.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.