Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24791145›Full record

ArticleDiversity & distributions2014

Ensemble distribution models in conservation prioritization: from consensus predictions to consensus reserve networks.

Laura Meller, Mar Cabeza, Samuel Pironon, Morgane Barbet-Massin, Luigi Maiorano, Damien Georges, Wilfried Thuiller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diversity & distributions, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Update of the Scientific Opinion on the risks to plant health posed byEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2019
    Article
  19. Habitat assessment of Marco Polo sheep (Ecology and evolution · 2018
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Laura MellerMetapopulation Research Group, Department of Biosciences, P.O. Box 65, 00014 University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland ; Laboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine, UMR-CNRS 5553, Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble I, BP 53, 38041, Grenoble Cedex 9, France.
Mar CabezaMetapopulation Research Group, Department of Biosciences, P.O. Box 65, 00014 University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Samuel PirononLaboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine, UMR-CNRS 5553, Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble I, BP 53, 38041, Grenoble Cedex 9, France.
Morgane Barbet-MassinMuséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, UMR 7204 MNHNCNRS-UPMC, Centre de Recherches sur la Biologie des Populations d'Oiseaux, CP 51 55 Rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France ; Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, 165 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06520-8106, USA.
Luigi MaioranoDepartment of Biology and Biotechnologies "Charles Darwin", University of Rome "La Sapienza", Viale dell'Università 32, Rome 00185, Italy.
Damien GeorgesLaboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine, UMR-CNRS 5553, Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble I, BP 53, 38041, Grenoble Cedex 9, France.
Wilfried ThuillerLaboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine, UMR-CNRS 5553, Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble I, BP 53, 38041, Grenoble Cedex 9, France.

Funding

European Research Council 281422
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimConservation planning exercises increasingly rely on species distributions predicted either from one particular statistical model or, more recently, from an ensemble of models (i.e. ensemble forecasting). However, it has not yet been explored how different ways of summarizing ensemble predictions affect conservation planning outcomes. We evaluate these effects and compare commonplace consensus methods, applied before the conservation prioritization phase, to a novel method that applies consensus after reserve selection. LOCATION: Europe.

methodsWe used an ensemble of predicted distributions of 146 Western Palaearctic bird species in alternative ways: four different consensus methods, as well as distributions discounted with variability, were used to produce inputs for spatial conservation prioritization. In addition, we developed and tested a novel method, in which we built 100 datasets by sampling the ensemble of predicted distributions, ran a conservation prioritization analysis on each of them and averaged the resulting priority ranks. We evaluated the conservation outcome against three controls: (i) a null control, based on random ranking of cells; (2) the reference solution, based on an expert-refined dataset; and (3) the independent solution, based on an independent dataset.

resultsNetworks based on predicted distributions were more representative of rare species than randomly selected networks. Alternative methods to summarize ensemble predictions differed in representativeness of resulting reserve networks. Our novel method resulted in better representation of rare species than pre-selection consensus methods. MAIN

conclusionsRetaining information about the variation in the predicted distributions throughout the conservation prioritization seems to provide better results than summarizing the predictions before conservation prioritization. Our results highlight the need to understand and consider model-based uncertainty when using predicted distribution data in conservation prioritization.

Indexed as

Consensus predictionsefficiencyoptimizationrare speciessystematic conservation planninguncertainty

Identifiers

PMID24791145
PMCPMC4003394

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.