Fine scale waterbody data improve prediction of waterbird occurrence despite coarse species data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While modelling habitat suitability and species distribution, ecologists must deal with issues related to the spatial resolution of species occurrence and environmental data. Indeed, given that the spatial resolution of species and environmental datasets range from centimeters to hundreds of kilometers, it underlines the importance of choosing the optimal combination of resolutions to achieve the highest possible modelling prediction accuracy. We evaluated how the spatial resolution of land cover/waterbody datasets (meters to 1 km) affect waterbird habitat suitability models based on atlas data (grid cell of 12 × 11 km). We hypothesized that the area, perimeter and number of waterbodies computed from high resolution datasets would explain distributions of waterbirds better because coarse resolution datasets omit small waterbodies affecting species occurrence. Specifically, we investigated which spatial resolution of waterbodies better explain the distribution of seven waterbirds nesting on ponds/lakes with areas ranging from 0.1 ha to hundreds of hectares. Our results show that the area and perimeter of waterbodies derived from high resolution datasets (raster data with 30 m resolution, vector data corresponding with map scale 1:10 000) explain the distribution of the waterbirds better than those calculated using less accurate datasets despite the coarse grain of the species data. Taking into account the spatial extent (global vs regional) of the datasets, we found the Global Inland Waterbody Dataset to be the most suitable for modelling distribution of waterbirds. In general, we recommend using land cover data of a resolution sufficient to capture the smallest patches of the habitat suitable for a given species’ presence for both fine and coarse grain habitat suitability and distribution modelling.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".