Developing an expert elicited simulation model to evaluate invasive species and fire management alternatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Invasive species can alter ecosystem properties and cause state shifts in landscapes. Resource managers charged with maintaining landscapes require tools to understand implications of alternative actions (or inactions) on landscape structure and function. Simulation models can serve as a virtual laboratory to explore these alternatives and their potential impacts on a landscape. To be useful, however, managers need to participate in model development to ensure that model structure can evaluate the response of key resources to plausible actions. Here, we detail development of a state‐and‐transition simulation model ( STSM ) to evaluate buffelgrass ( Cenchrus ciliaris L. syn Pennisetum ciliare (L.) Link) in Saguaro National Park (SNP), Arizona, USA , through collaboration between managers and researchers. We integrate expert knowledge and research to create and parameterize a stochastic, spatially explicit STSM to evaluate specific management objectives. We also develop a dynamic link between the STSM and a fire behavior model to allow exploration of potential novel processes introduced to the ecosystem by buffelgrass invasion. Our projections show that buffelgrass can be expected to increase on the landscape and that the integration of fire into the model accelerates the projected rate of invasion and increases degradation of resources of management concern. We highlight the benefit of engaging end users in the modeling process so that the model is targeted to evaluate management objectives, in this case retention of saguaro cacti ( Carnegiea gigantea (Engelm.) Britton & Rose) on the landscape. Being able to integrate an external model that can help address the unique characteristics of a problem such as the introduction of fire into the SNP desert ecosystem increases the ability of simulations to address complex ecological and management questions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".