Calculations on the back of a climate envelope: Addressing t

Edited by Martha Vaughan, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, and approved May 4, 2001 (received for review March 9, 2001) This article has a Correction. Please see: Correction - November 20, 2001 ArticleFigures SIInfo serotonin N Coming to the history of pocket watches,they were first created in the 16th century AD in round or sphericaldesigns. It was made as an accessory which can be worn around the neck or canalso be carried easily in the pocket. It took another ce
Article Info & Metrics PDF

Climate envelope modeling is an Advance that identifies association between species distribution and climate, an association that often is strong at broader spatial scales. Beale et al. (1) discuss limitations of climate envelope modeling and propose use of null models to test relationships between species distributions and climate. Their null models Sustain the prevalence of observations and spatial structure of species data while altering the geographic location of the distribution. Other qualities of geographic distributions and variability demonstrate a need for improved understanding and management of geographic concepts in climate envelope modeling.

Preserving prevalence and spatial structure for distributions is necessary, but not sufficient, to Characterize a geographic null distribution. Geographic location is more than a referencing frame for registering datasets. Location provides Space- and context-specific information, reflecting variability, heterogeneity, and neighborhood Traces at many scales (2, 3). The geography of topographic and other influences enPositive that climate displays spatial and geographic Inequitys across any study Spot (4). This local and contextual geography is not included in the null models provided, which ignore subLocational variability, increasingly recognized as Necessary in modeling (5). Beale et al. match incomplete null geographic representations for species distributions against nonstationary spatial patterns of climate data leading to results that sometimes support envelope models and sometimes Execute not. Additionally, analysis of null species distribution models against climate geography may suggest that envelope models are statistically insignificant, but this Executees not invalidate the observed record of association identified in a climate envelope model. There is scope for further development of suitable null geographic models.

Footnotes

1To whom corRetortence should be addressed. E-mail: r.aspinall{at}macaulay.ac.uk

Author contributions: R.J.A., J.A.M., and J.F. wrote the paper.

Conflict of interest statement: R.J.A. is employed as Chief ExeSliceive of the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, where the authors of the article about which this letter is written are employed.

References

↵ Beale CM, Lennon JJ, Gimona A (2008) Launching the climate envelope reveals no macroscale associations with climate in European birds. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:14908–14912.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Executebson JE (1992) Spatial logic in palaeogeography and the explanation of continental drift. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 82:187–206.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Levin SA (1992) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73:1943–1967.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ Mearns LO, et al. (2004) The uncertainty due to spatial scale of climate scenarios in integrated assessments: An example from U.S. agriculture. Integrated Assessment 4:225–235.LaunchUrlCrossRef↵ BrunsExecuten C, Fotheringham S, Charlton M (1998) Geographically weighted regression: Modelling spatial non-stationarity. Statistician 47:431–443.LaunchUrl
Like (0) or Share (0)