Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Evaluating alternative study designs for optimal sampling of species' climatic niches
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Evaluating alternative study designs for optimal sampling of species' climatic niches
Do you wish to request the book?
Evaluating alternative study designs for optimal sampling of species' climatic niches
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Evaluating alternative study designs for optimal sampling of species' climatic niches
2022
Overview
Ecologists have traditionally studied intraspecific variation by sampling species across their geographic ranges. However, whether this classic approach produces samples that accurately represent species' climatic niches is largely unknown. Alternative niche‐based study designs using species' climatic niches to inform sampling locations should more efficiently and completely capture the breadth of the niche, but the magnitude of this difference and how it may vary is unclear. Here we use conifers as a model system to explore these issues and reach specific recommendations for future sampling designs. Using an independent data set of high‐quality species' occurrences, we first show that recent publications examining variation across geographic space do a poor job of capturing the full breadth of species' niches, such that on average, only 22% of species' niche space was sampled. This was also true of a large compiled database, the International Tree‐Ring Data Bank (ITRDB), which yielded average niche coverage of only 45%. Finally, we simulated common sampling designs (i.e. random points, grids and transects) in both geographic and niche‐based sampling frameworks. Using two sampling metrics, niche coverage and niche undersampling, we measured how completely and evenly these simulated studies characterized the niches of 64 North American conifers. Niche‐based sampling better represented species' niches than geographic sampling, with the magnitude of this difference depending on study design and sample size. Niche‐based gridded study designs achieved the most complete sampling at all but the smallest sample sizes, covering ~15–25% more of a species' niche than similar designs implemented geographically. With fewer than 10 samples, however, all study designs performed poorly, and niche‐based transects achieved slightly higher niche coverage. Consequently, when more than a handful of samples are collected, we recommend that studies seeking to characterize variation across a species' niche consider using a gridded study design implemented in a niche‐based sampling framework.
