van Proosdij et al., 2016 - Google Patents
Minimum required number of specimen records to develop accurate species distribution modelsvan Proosdij et al., 2016
View PDF- Document ID
- 7577217450104457138
- Author
- van Proosdij A
- Sosef M
- Wieringa J
- Raes N
- Publication year
- Publication venue
- Ecography
External Links
Snippet
Species distribution models (SDMs) are widely used to predict the occurrence of species. Because SDMs generally use presence‐only data, validation of the predicted distribution and assessing model accuracy is challenging. Model performance depends on both sample …
- 241000894007 species 0 title abstract description 161
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING; COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRICAL DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F17/00—Digital computing or data processing equipment or methods, specially adapted for specific functions
- G06F17/10—Complex mathematical operations
- G06F17/18—Complex mathematical operations for evaluating statistical data, e.g. average values, frequency distributions, probability functions, regression analysis
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING; COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRICAL DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F17/00—Digital computing or data processing equipment or methods, specially adapted for specific functions
- G06F17/50—Computer-aided design
- G06F17/5009—Computer-aided design using simulation
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING; COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRICAL DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F17/00—Digital computing or data processing equipment or methods, specially adapted for specific functions
- G06F17/30—Information retrieval; Database structures therefor; File system structures therefor
- G06F17/30861—Retrieval from the Internet, e.g. browsers
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G01—MEASURING; TESTING
- G01V—GEOPHYSICS; GRAVITATIONAL MEASUREMENTS; DETECTING MASSES OR OBJECTS
- G01V99/00—Subject matter not provided for in other groups of this subclass
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| van Proosdij et al. | Minimum required number of specimen records to develop accurate species distribution models | |
| Liu et al. | The effect of sample size on the accuracy of species distribution models: considering both presences and pseudo‐absences or background sites | |
| Heuvelink et al. | Machine learning in space and time for modelling soil organic carbon change | |
| Howard et al. | A global assessment of the drivers of threatened terrestrial species richness | |
| Godsoe et al. | Effects of biotic interactions on modeled species' distribution can be masked by environmental gradients | |
| Landguth et al. | Quantifying the lag time to detect barriers in landscape genetics | |
| Liu et al. | Selecting thresholds for the prediction of species occurrence with presence‐only data | |
| Maraun et al. | VALUE: A framework to validate downscaling approaches for climate change studies | |
| Blach‐Overgaard et al. | Determinants of palm species distributions across Africa: the relative roles of climate, non‐climatic environmental factors, and spatial constraints | |
| Yañez‐Arenas et al. | Modelling geographic patterns of population density of the white‐tailed deer in central Mexico by implementing ecological niche theory | |
| Dini et al. | A new method for simultaneous calibration of demand pattern and Hazen-Williams coefficients in water distribution systems | |
| Westra et al. | A strategy for diagnosing and interpreting hydrological model nonstationarity | |
| F. Dormann et al. | Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data: a review | |
| Türkeş et al. | Desertification vulnerability and risk assessment for Turkey via an analytical hierarchy process model | |
| Idohou et al. | Spatio-temporal dynamic of suitable areas for species conservation in West Africa: eight economically important wild palms under present and future climates | |
| Matthews et al. | The gambin model provides a superior fit to species abundance distributions with a single free parameter: evidence, implementation and interpretation | |
| Aranda et al. | How well does presence‐only‐based species distribution modelling predict assemblage diversity? A case study of the Tenerife flora | |
| Prunier et al. | Contribution of spatial heterogeneity in effective population sizes to the variance in pairwise measures of genetic differentiation | |
| Sorichetta et al. | Reliability of groundwater vulnerability maps obtained through statistical methods | |
| Acevedo et al. | Population dynamics affect the capacity of species distribution models to predict species abundance on a local scale | |
| Thompson et al. | Characterising extinction debt following habitat fragmentation using neutral theory | |
| May et al. | Metacommunity, mainland‐island system or island communities? Assessing the regional dynamics of plant communities in a fragmented landscape | |
| Meynard et al. | The effect of a gradual response to the environment on species distribution modeling performance | |
| Kowsari et al. | Calibration of ground motion models to Icelandic peak ground acceleration data using Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation | |
| Li et al. | Plotting receiver operating characteristic and precision–recall curves from presence and background data |