MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137055274 · doi:10.1890/11-1048.1

How complex do models need to be to predict dispersal of threatened species through matrix habitats?

2012· article· en· W2137055274 on OpenAlexaff
Brian R. Hudgens, William F. Morris, Nick M. Haddad, William R. Fields, John W. Wilson, Daniel Kuefler, Todd Jobe

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Applications · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersStrategic Environmental Research and Development Program
KeywordsThreatened speciesBiological dispersalEcologyHabitatGeographyBiologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Persistence of species in fragmented landscapes depends on dispersal among suitable breeding sites, and dispersal is often influenced by the "matrix" habitats that lie between breeding sites. However, measuring effects of different matrix habitats on movement and incorporating those differences into spatially explicit models to predict dispersal is costly in terms of time and financial resources. Hence a key question for conservation managers is: Do more costly, complex movement models yield more accurate dispersal predictions? We compared the abilities of a range of movement models, from simple to complex, to predict the dispersal of an endangered butterfly, the Saint Francis' satyr (Neonympha mitchellii francisci). The value of more complex models differed depending on how value was assessed. Although the most complex model, based on detailed movement behaviors, best predicted observed dispersal rates, it was only slightly better than the simplest model, which was based solely on distance between sites. Consequently, a parsimony approach using information criteria favors the simplest model we examined. However, when we applied the models to a larger landscape that included proposed habitat restoration sites, in which the composition of the matrix was different than the matrix surrounding extant breeding sites, the simplest model failed to identify a potentially important dispersal barrier, open habitat that butterflies rarely enter, which may completely isolate some of the proposed restoration sites from other breeding sites. Finally, we found that, although the gain in predicting dispersal with increasing model complexity was small, so was the increase in financial cost. Furthermore, a greater fit continued to accrue with greater financial cost, and more complex models made substantially different predictions than simple models when applied to a novel landscape in which butterflies are to be reintroduced to bolster their populations. This suggests that more complex models might be justifiable on financial grounds. Our results caution against a pure parsimony approach to deciding how complex movement models need to be to accurately predict dispersal through the matrix, especially if the models are to be applied to novel or modified landscapes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.495
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcological ApplicationsSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207