Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29107997›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Comparing pseudo-absences generation techniques in Boosted Regression Trees models for conservation purposes: A case study on amphibians in a protected area.

Francesco Cerasoli, Mattia Iannella, Paola D'Alessandro, Maurizio Biondi

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Estimating the distribution ofEcosphere (Washington, D.C) · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Investigating the Current and Future Co-Occurrence ofInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

4 authors.

Francesco CerasoliDepartment of Life, Health & Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Mattia IannellaDepartment of Life, Health & Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4695-0194
Paola D'AlessandroDepartment of Life, Health & Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Maurizio BiondiDepartment of Life, Health & Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Boosted Regression Trees (BRT) is one of the modelling techniques most recently applied to biodiversity conservation and it can be implemented with presence-only data through the generation of artificial absences (pseudo-absences). In this paper, three pseudo-absences generation techniques are compared, namely the generation of pseudo-absences within target-group background (TGB), testing both the weighted (WTGB) and unweighted (UTGB) scheme, and the generation at random (RDM), evaluating their performance and applicability in distribution modelling and species conservation. The choice of the target group fell on amphibians, because of their rapid decline worldwide and the frequent lack of guidelines for conservation strategies and regional-scale planning, which instead could be provided through an appropriate implementation of SDMs. Bufo bufo, Salamandrina perspicillata and Triturus carnifex were considered as target species, in order to perform our analysis with species having different ecological and distributional characteristics. The study area is the "Gran Sasso-Monti della Laga" National Park, which hosts 15 Natura 2000 sites and represents one of the most important biodiversity hotspots in Europe. Our results show that the model calibration ameliorates when using the target-group based pseudo-absences compared to the random ones, especially when applying the WTGB. Contrarily, model discrimination did not significantly vary in a consistent way among the three approaches with respect to the tree target species. Both WTGB and RDM clearly isolate the highly contributing variables, supplying many relevant indications for species conservation actions. Moreover, the assessment of pairwise variable interactions and their three-dimensional visualization further increase the amount of useful information for protected areas' managers. Finally, we suggest the use of RDM as an admissible alternative when it is not possible to individuate a suitable set of species as a representative target-group from which the pseudo-absences can be generated.

Indexed as

AmphibiansModels, TheoreticalAnimalsBiodiversityConservation of Natural ResourcesEuropeRegression Analysis

Identifiers

PMID29107997
PMCPMC5673221

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.