TY  - JOUR
A1  - Dormann, Carsten F.
A1  - Schymanski, Stanislaus J.
A1  - Cabral, Juliano Sarmento
A1  - Chuine, Isabelle
A1  - Graham, Catherine
A1  - Hartig, Florian
A1  - Kearney, Michael
A1  - Morin, Xavier
A1  - Römermann, Christine
A1  - Schröder-Esselbach, Boris
A1  - Singer, Alexander
T1  - Correlation and process in species distribution models: bridging a dichotomy
JF  - Journal of biogeography
N2  - 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.
KW  - Hypothesis generation
KW  - mechanistic model
KW  - parameterization
KW  - process-based model
KW  - species distribution model
KW  - SDM
KW  - uncertainty
KW  - validation
Y1  - 2012
U6  - https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2011.02659.x
SN  - 0305-0270
VL  - 39
IS  - 12
SP  - 2119
EP  - 2131
PB  - Wiley-Blackwell
CY  - Hoboken
ER  - 
TY  - JOUR
A1  - Jeltsch, Florian
A1  - Blaum, Niels
A1  - Brose, Ulrich
A1  - Chipperfield, Joseph D.
A1  - Clough, Yann
A1  - Farwig, Nina
A1  - Geissler, Katja
A1  - Graham, Catherine H.
A1  - Grimm, Volker
A1  - Hickler, Thomas
A1  - Huth, Andreas
A1  - May, Felix
A1  - Meyer, Katrin M.
A1  - Pagel, Jörn
A1  - Reineking, Björn
A1  - Rillig, Matthias C.
A1  - Shea, Katriona
A1  - Schurr, Frank Martin
A1  - Schroeder, Boris
A1  - Tielbörger, Katja
A1  - Weiss, Lina
A1  - Wiegand, Kerstin
A1  - Wiegand, Thorsten
A1  - Wirth, Christian
A1  - Zurell, Damaris
T1  - How can we bring together empiricists and modellers in functional biodiversity research?
JF  - Basic and applied ecology : Journal of the Gesellschaft für Ökologie
N2  - Improving our understanding of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning and our capacity to inform ecosystem management requires an integrated framework for functional biodiversity research (FBR). However, adequate integration among empirical approaches (monitoring and experimental) and modelling has rarely been achieved in FBR. We offer an appraisal of the issues involved and chart a course towards enhanced integration. A major element of this path is the joint orientation towards the continuous refinement of a theoretical framework for FBR that links theory testing and generalization with applied research oriented towards the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. We further emphasize existing decision-making frameworks as suitable instruments to practically merge these different aims of FBR and bring them into application. This integrated framework requires joint research planning, and should improve communication and stimulate collaboration between modellers and empiricists, thereby overcoming existing reservations and prejudices. The implementation of this integrative research agenda for FBR requires an adaptation in most national and international funding schemes in order to accommodate such joint teams and their more complex structures and data needs.
KW  - Biodiversity theory
KW  - Biodiversity experiments
KW  - Conservation management
KW  - Decision-making
KW  - Ecosystem functions and services
KW  - Forecasting
KW  - Functional traits
KW  - Global change
KW  - Monitoring programmes
KW  - Interdisciplinarity
Y1  - 2013
U6  - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2013.01.001
SN  - 1439-1791
VL  - 14
IS  - 2
SP  - 93
EP  - 101
PB  - Elsevier
CY  - Jena
ER  -