Thresholding species distribution models: Simple approaches for land‐use planning in multifunctional landscapes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Species distribution models (SDMs) are often used to understand changes to species' distributions and their habitats under different land‐use scenarios, enabling decision makers to prioritize areas for management efforts and balance environmental conservation with socio‐economic demands on the landscape. However, the application of SDMs in land‐use planning and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) remains limited due to challenges in interpreting and communicating continuous predictions resulting from these SDMs. Although different binarization methods have been used to overcome such challenges, the choice of threshold can profoundly alter the resulting binary habitat map, and most methods lack simplicity and require access to underlying species occurrence and environmental data used to develop the SDMs. Hence, there is a demand for testing simple alternative binarization methods to enable in‐house application of SDMs by practitioners and to facilitate interpretation and communication. Using SDMs of 103 boreal bird species in Alberta, Canada, we transform species relative abundance predictions of SDMs into direct estimates of habitat area, a proxy for habitat suitability, using four simple and three complex thresholding methods. We compare the performance of the binarized models for each bird species and between forest specialists vs. generalists under land‐use change scenarios. We found that thresholded models reflect losses in suitable habitat under industrial disturbance scenarios more realistically compared to continuous relative abundance models. Notably, simple thresholding methods, particularly the mean predicted relative abundance, performed similarly to complex thresholding methods in predicting suitable habitat areas, as indicated by model evaluations using the area under the curve. These findings suggest that using the mean as a binarization threshold can effectively bridge the gap between complex SDMs and their application in policy and planning, without sacrificing predictive accuracy. We conclude that simple threshold binarization methods, such as the mean, can leverage the strong predictive power of SDMs to provide insights into future changes in species' habitat during land‐use planning scenarios, account for their uncertainties and expand their utility to facilitate interpretation for science‐informed decision‐making in multifunctional 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 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".