@misc{KisslingDormannGroeneveldetal.2012,
  author    = {Kissling, W. D. and Dormann, Carsten F. and Groeneveld, Juergen and Hickler, Thomas and K{\"u}hn, Ingolf and McInerny, Greg J. and Montoya, Jose M. and R{\"o}mermann, Christine and Schiffers, Katja and Schurr, Frank Martin and Singer, Alexander and Svenning, Jens-Christian and Zimmermann, Niklaus E. and O'Hara, Robert B.},
  title     = {Towards novel approaches to modelling biotic interactions in multispecies assemblages at large spatial extents},
  series = {Journal of biogeography},
  volume    = {39},
  journal   = {Journal of biogeography},
  number    = {12},
  publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {0305-0270},
  doi       = {10.1111/j.1365-2699.2011.02663.x},
  pages     = {2163 -- 2178},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {Aim Biotic interactions within guilds or across trophic levels have widely been ignored in species distribution models (SDMs). This synthesis outlines the development of species interaction distribution models (SIDMs), which aim to incorporate multispecies interactions at large spatial extents using interaction matrices. Location Local to global. Methods We review recent approaches for extending classical SDMs to incorporate biotic interactions, and identify some methodological and conceptual limitations. To illustrate possible directions for conceptual advancement we explore three principal ways of modelling multispecies interactions using interaction matrices: simple qualitative linkages between species, quantitative interaction coefficients reflecting interaction strengths, and interactions mediated by interaction currencies. We explain methodological advancements for static interaction data and multispecies time series, and outline methods to reduce complexity when modelling multispecies interactions. Results Classical SDMs ignore biotic interactions and recent SDM extensions only include the unidirectional influence of one or a few species. However, novel methods using error matrices in multivariate regression models allow interactions between multiple species to be modelled explicitly with spatial co-occurrence data. If time series are available, multivariate versions of population dynamic models can be applied that account for the effects and relative importance of species interactions and environmental drivers. These methods need to be extended by incorporating the non-stationarity in interaction coefficients across space and time, and are challenged by the limited empirical knowledge on spatio-temporal variation in the existence and strength of species interactions. Model complexity may be reduced by: (1) using prior ecological knowledge to set a subset of interaction coefficients to zero, (2) modelling guilds and functional groups rather than individual species, and (3) modelling interaction currencies and species effect and response traits. Main conclusions There is great potential for developing novel approaches that incorporate multispecies interactions into the projection of species distributions and community structure at large spatial extents. Progress can be made by: (1) developing statistical models with interaction matrices for multispecies co-occurrence datasets across large-scale environmental gradients, (2) testing the potential and limitations of methods for complexity reduction, and (3) sampling and monitoring comprehensive spatio-temporal data on biotic interactions in multispecies communities.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{DormannSchymanskiCabraletal.2012,
  author    = {Dormann, Carsten F. and Schymanski, Stanislaus J. and Cabral, Juliano Sarmento and Chuine, Isabelle and Graham, Catherine and Hartig, Florian and Kearney, Michael and Morin, Xavier and R{\"o}mermann, Christine and Schr{\"o}der-Esselbach, Boris and Singer, Alexander},
  title     = {Correlation and process in species distribution models: bridging a dichotomy},
  series = {Journal of biogeography},
  volume    = {39},
  journal   = {Journal of biogeography},
  number    = {12},
  publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {0305-0270},
  doi       = {10.1111/j.1365-2699.2011.02659.x},
  pages     = {2119 -- 2131},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {Within the field of species distribution modelling an apparent dichotomy exists between process-based and correlative approaches, where the processes are explicit in the former and implicit in the latter. However, these intuitive distinctions can become blurred when comparing species distribution modelling approaches in more detail. In this review article, we contrast the extremes of the correlativeprocess spectrum of species distribution models with respect to core assumptions, model building and selection strategies, validation, uncertainties, common errors and the questions they are most suited to answer. The extremes of such approaches differ clearly in many aspects, such as model building approaches, parameter estimation strategies and transferability. However, they also share strengths and weaknesses. We show that claims of one approach being intrinsically superior to the other are misguided and that they ignore the processcorrelation continuum as well as the domains of questions that each approach is addressing. Nonetheless, the application of process-based approaches to species distribution modelling lags far behind more correlative (process-implicit) methods and more research is required to explore their potential benefits. Critical issues for the employment of species distribution modelling approaches are given, together with a guideline for appropriate usage. We close with challenges for future development of process-explicit species distribution models and how they may complement current approaches to study species distributions.},
  language  = {en}
}