MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792270018 · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.12997

Combining network theory and reaction–advection–diffusion modelling for predicting animal distribution in dynamic environments

2018· article· en· W2792270018 on OpenAlexafffund
Marie‐Caroline Prima, Thierry Duchesne, A. Fortin, Louis‐Paul Rivest, Daniel Fortin

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in Ecology and Evolution · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceLandscape connectivityNetwork analysisAdvectionEcological networkGraph theoryNetwork theoryEcologyBiological dispersalMathematicsEcosystemBiologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Movement is a key process driving animal distributions within heterogeneous landscapes. Graph (network) theory is increasingly used to understand and predict landscape functional connectivity, as network properties can provide crucial information regarding the resilience of a system to landscape disturbances, e.g. removal of habitat patches. The temporal dimension of movement patterns, however, is not generally included in network analysis, which can lead to a discrepancy between observed space use and landscape connectivity. Reaction–advection–diffusion models, when coupled with network analysis, could provide a powerful mechanistic framework based upon spatio‐temporal dimensions of animal movement, but this approach remains poorly developed for ecological studies. We developed a mechanistic space use model that considers both residency time in resource patches and movement amongst those patches within a spatial network. The framework involves two main steps: first, the network topology that best reflects functional connectivity for the study system is identified; second, a spatio‐temporal flow dynamic is implemented within the network using reaction–advection–diffusion modelling. To illustrate the approach, we used observations of radiocollared plains bison Bison bison bison that were travelling in a meadow network within a forest matrix. In the model application, we found that the graph best reflecting the functional connectivity of bison was a complex graph of ultra‐small world scale‐free network type. The reaction–advection–diffusion model involved the effect of meadow area and inter‐meadow distance on bison travels. Simulations showed that a simple graph or distance‐based graphs provided less accurate predictions of bison distribution, while also predicting different management actions to effectively impact bison space use. Our study demonstrates how reaction–advection–diffusion modelling, coupled with network theory, can provide a robust mechanistic framework for predicting animal distribution in dynamic environments. The modelling approach can be applied to a large range of systems that are subjected to rapid environmental changes due to habitat management or natural resource extraction, for example. Furthermore, our study demonstrates that management and conservation planning can strongly depend upon network structure, and that a faulty assessment of network topology can result in poor planning, with potential unexpected impacts on animal distributions.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.276 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations20
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in Ecology and EvolutionSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207