Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSporbert, M.-
dc.contributor.authorBruelheide, H.-
dc.contributor.authorSeidler, G.-
dc.contributor.authorKeil, P.-
dc.contributor.authorJandt, U.-
dc.contributor.authorAustrheim, G.-
dc.contributor.authorBiurrun, I.-
dc.contributor.authorCampos, J.A.-
dc.contributor.authorCarni, A.-
dc.contributor.authorChytry, M.-
dc.contributor.authorCsiky, J.-
dc.contributor.authorDe Bie, E.-
dc.contributor.authorDengler, Jürgen-
dc.date.accessioned2019-05-23T14:40:32Z-
dc.date.available2019-05-23T14:40:32Z-
dc.date.issued2019-05-20-
dc.identifier.issn1654-1103de_CH
dc.identifier.issn1100-9233de_CH
dc.identifier.urihttps://digitalcollection.zhaw.ch/handle/11475/17168-
dc.description.abstractAim: Biodiversity databases are valuable resources for understanding plant species distributions and dynamics, but they may insufficiently represent the actual geographic distribution and climatic niches of species. Here we propose and test a method to assess sampling coverage of species distribution in biodiversity databases in geographic and climatic space. Location: Europe. Methods: Using a test selection of 808,794 vegetation plots from the European Vegetation Archive (EVA), we assessed the sampling coverage of 564 European vascular plant species across both their geographic ranges and realized climatic niches. Range maps from the Chorological Database Halle (CDH) were used as background reference data to capture species geographic ranges and to derive species climatic niches. To quantify sampling coverage, we developed a box‐counting method, the Dynamic Match Coefficient (DMC), which quantifies how much a set of occurrences of a given species matches with its geographic range or climatic niche. DMC is the area under the curve measuring the match between occurrence data and background reference (geographic range or climatic niche) across grids with variable resolution. High DMC values indicate good sampling coverage. We applied null models to compare observed DMC values with expectations from random distributions across species ranges and niches. Results: Comparisons with null models showed that, for most species, actual distributions within EVA are deviating from null model expectations and are more clumped than expected in both geographic and climatic space. Despite high interspecific variation, we found a positive relationship in DMC values between geographic and climatic space, but sampling coverage was in general more random across geographic space. Conclusion: Because DMC values are species‐specific and most biodiversity databases are clearly biased in terms of sampling coverage of species occurrences, we recommend using DMC values as covariates in macroecological models that use species as the observation unit.de_CH
dc.language.isoende_CH
dc.publisherWileyde_CH
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of vegetation sciencede_CH
dc.rightsLicence according to publishing contractde_CH
dc.subject.ddc333: Bodenwirtschaft und Ressourcende_CH
dc.subject.ddc577: Ökologiede_CH
dc.titleAssessing sampling coverage of species distribution in biodiversity databasesde_CH
dc.typeBeitrag in wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriftde_CH
dcterms.typeTextde_CH
zhaw.departementLife Sciences und Facility Managementde_CH
zhaw.organisationalunitInstitut für Umwelt und Natürliche Ressourcen (IUNR)de_CH
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/jvs.12763de_CH
zhaw.funding.euNode_CH
zhaw.issue4de_CH
zhaw.originated.zhawYesde_CH
zhaw.pages.end632de_CH
zhaw.pages.start620de_CH
zhaw.publication.statusacceptedVersionde_CH
zhaw.volume30de_CH
zhaw.publication.reviewPeer review (Publikation)de_CH
zhaw.webfeedVegetationsökologiede_CH
zhaw.author.additionalYesde_CH
Appears in Collections:Publikationen Life Sciences und Facility Management

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.