ArticlePloS one2024
A joint model for the estimation of species distributions and environmental characteristics from point-referenced data.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Simulation ofFrontiers in plant science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPredicting and explaining species occurrence using environmental characteristics is essential for nature conservation and management. Species distribution models consider species occurrence as the dependent variable and environmental conditions as the independent variables. Suitable conditions are estimated based on a sample of species observations, where one assumes that the underlying environmental conditions are known. This is not always the case, as environmental variables at broad spatial scales are regularly extrapolated from point-referenced data. However, treating the predicted environmental conditions as accurate surveys of independent variables at a specific point does not take into account their uncertainty.
methodsWe present a joint hierarchical Bayesian model where models for the environmental variables, rather than a set of predicted values, are input to the species distribution model. All models are fitted together based only on point-referenced observations, which results in a correct propagation of uncertainty. We use 50 plant species representative of the Dutch flora in natural areas with 8 soil condition predictors taken during field visits in the Netherlands as a case study. We compare the proposed model to the standard approach by studying the difference in associations, predicted maps, and cross-validated accuracy.
findingsWe find that there are differences between the two approaches in the estimated association between soil conditions and species occurrence (correlation 0.64-0.84), but the predicted maps are quite similar (correlation 0.82-1.00). The differences are more pronounced in the rarer species. The cross-validated accuracy is substantially better for 5 species out of the 50, and the species can also help to predict the soil characteristics. The estimated associations tend to have a smaller magnitude with more certainty.
conclusionThese findings suggests that the standard model is often sufficient for prediction, but effort should be taken to develop models which take the uncertainty in the independent variables into account for interpretation.
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.