School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5
-
ItemThe predictive performance of process-explicit range change models remains largely untested(WILEY, 2023-03-01)Ecological models used to forecast range change (range change models; RCM) have recently diversified to account for a greater number of ecological and observational processes in pursuit of more accurate and realistic predictions. Theory suggests that process‐explicit RCMs should generate more robust forecasts, particularly under novel environmental conditions. RCMs accounting for processes are generally more complex and data hungry, and so, require extra effort to build. Thus, it is necessary to understand when the effort of building a more realistic model is likely to generate more reliable forecasts. Here, we review the literature to explore whether process‐explicit models have been tested through benchmarking their temporal predictive performance (i.e. their predictive performance when transferred in time) and model transferability (i.e. their ability to keep their predictive performance when transferred to generate predictions into a different time) against simpler models, and highlight the gaps between the rapid development of process‐explicit RCMs and the testing of their potential improvements. We found that, out of five ecological processes (dispersal, demography, physiology, evolution, species interactions) and two observational processes (sampling bias, imperfect detection) that may influence reliability of forecasts, only the effects of dispersal, demography and imperfect detection have been benchmarked using temporally‐independent datasets. Only nine out of twenty‐nine process‐explicit model types have been tested to assess whether accounting for processes improves temporal predictive performance. We found no benchmarks assessing model transferability. We discuss potential reasons for the lack of empirical validation of process‐explicit models. Considering these findings, we propose an expanded research agenda to properly test the performance of process‐explicit RCMs, and highlight some opportunities to fill the gaps by suggesting models to be benchmarked using existing historical datasets.
-
ItemIdentifying technology solutions to bring conservation into the innovation era(WILEY, 2019-12)Innovation has the potential to enable conservation science and practice to keep pace with the escalating threats to global biodiversity, but this potential will only be realized if such innovations are designed and developed to fulfill specific needs and solve well‐defined conservation problems. We propose that business‐world strategies for assessing the practicality of innovation can be applied to assess the viability of innovations, such as new technology, for addressing biodiversity conservation challenges. Here, we outline a five‐step, “lean start‐up” based approach for considering conservation innovation from a business‐planning perspective. Then, using three prominent conservation initiatives – Marxan (software), Conservation Drones (technology support), and Mataki (wildlife‐tracking devices) – as case studies, we show how considering proposed initiatives from the perspective of a conceptual business model can support innovative technologies in achieving desired conservation outcomes.
-
ItemForecasting species range dynamics with process-explicit models: matching methods to applications(WILEY, 2019-11)Knowing where species occur is fundamental to many ecological and environmental applications. Species distribution models (SDMs) are typically based on correlations between species occurrence data and environmental predictors, with ecological processes captured only implicitly. However, there is a growing interest in approaches that explicitly model processes such as physiology, dispersal, demography and biotic interactions. These models are believed to offer more robust predictions, particularly when extrapolating to novel conditions. Many process-explicit approaches are now available, but it is not clear how we can best draw on this expanded modelling toolbox to address ecological problems and inform management decisions. Here, we review a range of process-explicit models to determine their strengths and limitations, as well as their current use. Focusing on four common applications of SDMs - regulatory planning, extinction risk, climate refugia and invasive species - we then explore which models best meet management needs. We identify barriers to more widespread and effective use of process-explicit models and outline how these might be overcome. As well as technical and data challenges, there is a pressing need for more thorough evaluation of model predictions to guide investment in method development and ensure the promise of these new approaches is fully realised.
-
ItemModel averaging in ecology: a review of Bayesian, information-theoretic, and tactical approaches for predictive inference(WILEY, 2018-11)Abstract In ecology, the true causal structure for a given problem is often not known, and several plausible models and thus model predictions exist. It has been claimed that using weighted averages of these models can reduce prediction error, as well as better reflect model selection uncertainty. These claims, however, are often demonstrated by isolated examples. Analysts must better understand under which conditions model averaging can improve predictions and their uncertainty estimates. Moreover, a large range of different model averaging methods exists, raising the question of how they differ in their behaviour and performance. Here, we review the mathematical foundations of model averaging along with the diversity of approaches available. We explain that the error in model‐averaged predictions depends on each model's predictive bias and variance, as well as the covariance in predictions between models, and uncertainty about model weights. We show that model averaging is particularly useful if the predictive error of contributing model predictions is dominated by variance, and if the covariance between models is low. For noisy data, which predominate in ecology, these conditions will often be met. Many different methods to derive averaging weights exist, from Bayesian over information‐theoretical to cross‐validation optimized and resampling approaches. A general recommendation is difficult, because the performance of methods is often context dependent. Importantly, estimating weights creates some additional uncertainty. As a result, estimated model weights may not always outperform arbitrary fixed weights, such as equal weights for all models. When averaging a set of models with many inadequate models, however, estimating model weights will typically be superior to equal weights. We also investigate the quality of the confidence intervals calculated for model‐averaged predictions, showing that they differ greatly in behaviour and seldom manage to achieve nominal coverage. Our overall recommendations stress the importance of non‐parametric methods such as cross‐validation for a reliable uncertainty quantification of model‐averaged predictions.
-
ItemUsing decision science to evaluate global biodiversity indices(WILEY, 2021-04)Global biodiversity indices are used to measure environmental change and progress toward conservation goals, yet few indices have been evaluated comprehensively for their capacity to detect trends of interest, such as declines in threatened species or ecosystem function. Using a structured approach based on decision science, we qualitatively evaluated 9 indices commonly used to track biodiversity at global and regional scales against 5 criteria relating to objectives, design, behavior, incorporation of uncertainty, and constraints (e.g., costs and data availability). Evaluation was based on reference literature for indices available at the time of assessment. We identified 4 key gaps in indices assessed: pathways to achieving goals (means objectives) were not always clear or relevant to desired outcomes (fundamental objectives); index testing and understanding of expected behavior was often lacking; uncertainty was seldom acknowledged or accounted for; and costs of implementation were seldom considered. These gaps may render indices inadequate in certain decision-making contexts and are problematic for indices linked with biodiversity targets and sustainability goals. Ensuring that index objectives are clear and their design is underpinned by a model of relevant processes are crucial in addressing the gaps identified by our assessment. Uptake and productive use of indices will be improved if index performance is tested rigorously and assumptions and uncertainties are clearly communicated to end users. This will increase index accuracy and value in tracking biodiversity change and supporting national and global policy decisions, such as the post-2020 global biodiversity framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity.