ArticleFrontiers in zoology2023
Using fuzzy logic to compare species distribution models developed on the basis of expert knowledge and sampling records : Expert knowledge versus sampling in species distribution modelling.
Article in Frontiers in zoology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Correction: Using fuzzy logic to compare species distribution models developed on the basis of expert knowledge and sampling records.Frontiers in zoology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundExperts use knowledge to infer the distribution of species based on fuzzy logical assumptions about the relationship between species and the environment. Thus, expert knowledge is amenable to fuzzy logic modelling, which give to propositions a continuous truth value between 0 and 1. In species distribution modelling, fuzzy logic may also be used to model, from a number of records, the degree to which conditions are favourable to the occurrence of a species. Therefore, fuzzy logic operations can be used to compare and combine models based on expert knowledge and species records. Here, we applied fuzzy logic modelling to the distribution of amphibians in Uruguay as inferred from expert knowledge and from observed records to infer favourable locations, with favourability being the commensurable unit for both kinds of data sources. We compared the results for threatened species, species considered by experts to be ubiquitous, and non-threatened, non-ubiquitous species. We calculated the fuzzy intersection of models based on both knowledge sources to obtain a unified prediction of favourable locations.
resultsModels based on expert knowledge involved a larger number of variables and were less affected by sampling bias. Models based on experts had the same overprediction rate for the three types of species, whereas models based on species records had a lower prediction rate for ubiquitous species. Models based on expert knowledge performed equally as well or better than corresponding models based on species records for threatened species, even when they had to discriminate and classify the same set of records used to build the models based on species records. For threatened species, expert models predicted more restrictive favourable territories than those predicted based on records. Observed records generated the best-fitted models for non-threatened non-ubiquitous species, and ubiquitous species.
conclusionsFuzzy modelling permitted the objective comparison of the potential of expert knowledge and incomplete distribution records to infer the territories favourable for different species. Distribution of threatened species was able to be better explained by subjective expert knowledge, while for generalist species models based on observed data were more accurate. These results have implications for the correct use of expert knowledge in conservation planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.