Paleoecological and paleoenvironmental interpretation of three successive macrofloras and palynofloras from the Kola Switch locality, lower Permian (Archer City Formation, Bowie Group) of Clay County, Texas, USA

DiMichele, William A.; Hotton, Carol L.; Looy, Cindy V.; Hook, Robert W.

doi:10.1007/s12542-019-00485-8

Cited by 10 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Whichever proxy is used, only some organisms are recorded, so that one record represents only a small sample of its original environment, biased toward the most resistant species (Sangster & Dale, 1964) and deposit environments with high preservation potential (e.g., riparian forests, riverbeds). Finally, whereas microfossil records such as pollen are often assumed to represent the regional environment, macrofossils such as leaves and wood more likely represent the local environment given the latter are not dispersed as much as the former (e.g., DiMichele et al, 2019). Hence, pollen cores can accumulate species‐composition information across a much broader spatial range than the immediate vicinity in which the sample was collected.…”

Section: Mapping Past Present and Future Biomes: Methods And Proxiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to map biomes: Quantitative comparison and review of biome‐mapping methods

Champreux,

Saltré,

Traylor

et al. 2024

Ecological Monographs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biomes are large‐scale ecosystems occupying large spaces. The biome concept should theoretically facilitate scientific synthesis of global‐scale studies of the past, present, and future biosphere. However, there is neither a consensus biome map nor universally accepted definition of terrestrial biomes, making joint interpretation and comparison of biome‐related studies difficult. “Desert,” “rainforest,” “tundra,” “grassland,” or “savanna,” while widely used terms in common language, have multiple definitions and no universally accepted spatial distribution. Fit‐for‐purpose classification schemes are necessary, so multiple biome‐mapping methods should for now co‐exist. In this review, we compare biome‐mapping methods, first conceptually, then quantitatively. To facilitate the description of the diversity of approaches, we group the extant diversity of past, present, and future global‐scale biome‐mapping methods into three main families that differ by the feature captured, the mapping technique, and the nature of observation used: (1) compilation biome maps from expert elicitation, (2) functional biome maps from vegetation physiognomy, and (3) simulated biome maps from vegetation modeling. We design a protocol to measure and quantify spatially the pairwise agreement between biome maps. We then illustrate the use of such a protocol with a real‐world application by investigating the potential ecological drivers of disagreement between four broadly used, modern global biome maps. In this example, we quantify that the strongest disagreement among biome maps generally occurs in landscapes altered by human activities and moderately covered by vegetation. Such disagreements are sources of bias when combining several biome classifications. When aiming to produce realistic biome maps, biases could be minimized by promoting schemes using observations rather than predictions, while simultaneously considering the effect of humans and other ecosystem engineers in the definition. Throughout this review, we provide comparison and decision tools to navigate the diversity of approaches to encourage a more effective use of the biome concept.

show abstract

Section: Mapping Past Present and Future Biomes: Methods And Proxiesmentioning

confidence: 99%