Comparing Two Species Distribution Models Using Satellite Only and Ready-Made Environmental Variables for the Dakota Skipper (Hesperia dacotae), Interlake Region of Manitoba, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Dakota skipper, Hesperia dacotae (Skinner, 1911) [Hesperiidae, Lepidopterida] is a rare prairie obligate butterfly with an affinity for anthropogenically undisturbed, grassland habitat with diverse native flora. Persistent threats include habitat fragmentation, destruction, and degradation. These and other threats have caused precipitous population declines and local extirpation across its range. Consequentially, the Dakota skipper is currently listed as Endangered in Canada and Threatened in the United States, and the province of Manitoba. Species distribution models (SDM) are a well-known technique which attempt to predict a species distribution on a landscape. These predictions can then be used to inform conservation actions such as guiding survey effort, land acquisitions, and reintroductions. The objectives of this project were to: 1) Compare Dakota skipper models using freely available high resolution remotely sensed products to those using more traditional environmental predictors. 2) Field validate both models to identify the most accurate model using efficient and economical methods. 3) Address issues of modelling rare species to produce a robust SDM for the Dakota skipper in Manitoba. I found that SDMs built from environmental variables generated from satellite imagery performed comparably to one produced from readily available geospatial information. I also found that field validation was more accurate for evaluating SDMs than purely statistical methods. I also produced usable SDMs for the Dakota skipper in the Interlake. Implications from this study are that the advantages of satellite imagery can be leveraged to create useable SDMs to guide conservation actions. This study also further supports the need to field validate an SDM over relying on model statistical output which can be misleading.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".