Accounting for the Influence of Geographic Location and Spatial Autocorrelation in Environmental Models: A Comparative Analysis Using North American Songbirds
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Environmental models are a critical tool for identifying where organisms occur by estimating the relationship among species occurrence and important environmental factors. To date, the overwhelming majority of predictive occurrence models disregard both the impact of spatial autocorrelation (interaction between neighbouring points) as well as the possibility that model relation- ships may vary depending on geographic location. To address this gap, we measured their impact on five bird species observed during seven years of the North American Breeding Bird Survey. We first built traditional occurrence models (of varying functional complex- ity) using logistic regressions and generalized additive models (GAMs). We then compared model accuracy and goodness-of-fit to those incorporating spatial autocorrelation (ALOG) and spatial dependence (via geographically weighted regression, GWR). Environmental variables included aspects of land cover, climate, and topography. A residual analysis indicated that spatial autocorrelation persisted within even the most complex traditional models. In contrast, not only did ALOG models incorporate this effect (as indicated by a lack of residual autocorrelation), but also offered better predictive power for some species (+0.118 in the case of the American Crow, relative to the best GAM model). From an information-theoretic perspective, ALOG models were consistent improvements over traditional models. Adoption of GWR models also improved predictive accuracy (ranging from +0.078 for the American Crow and +0.008 for the Purple Finch). However, comparison of their evidence ratios with ALOG models indicated that ALOG models were generally superior. While we were unable to determine why geographic location influenced species’ responses to environmental conditions, evi- dence from generalized estimating equations (GEEs) revealed significant within-route correlation (Ï = 0.54 ±0.26 SE), and implicated an observer effect. A combination of broad-scale and fine-scale factors were important for predicting occurrence, but we demonstrate that the incorporation of spatial factors offers the potential to measure the spatially explicit outcomes of intra-specific interactions, and regional differences in resource usage. We recommend that these methods be considered, particularly when evidence points to spatially autocorrelated errors or when there are a priori reasons to suspect geographic variability in resource selection.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle