Regression and model-building in conservation biology, biogeography and ecology: The distinction between – and reconciliation of – ‘predictive’ and ‘explanatory’ models

By R. Mac Nally. Biodiversity and Conservation, 2000

860 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5cb781f78c98510b019c4369361632c5c1b5377b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecological Modeling

In Ecology

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Phylogenetic and functional characteristics of household yard floras and their changes along an urbanization gradient (2012, methodology): “…the different models with Akaike’s information criterion (AIC), which has the objective ‘‘to find a compromise between model ‘fit,’ usually gauged by a term representing residual mean or sum of squares, and model ‘complexity,’ which is a function of the number of model terms’’ (Mac Nally 2000:662).”
Does a top‐predator provide an endangered rodent with refuge from an invasive mesopredator? (2009, methodology): “…we ranked the effect size of explanatory variables using hierarchical partitioning analysis using the R-package ‘hier.part’ (Mac Nally & Walsh, 2004) to separate the percentage independent and joint contribution of each variable to the total explanatory power of the model (Mac Nally, 2000).”
Measuring the relative effect of factors affecting species distribution model predictions (2014, methodology): “Hierarchical partitioning (Chevan & Sutherland 1991; Mac Nally 2000) has been widely used, and in a similar context by Dormann et al. (2008) in particular.”
RESTORATION OF BUTTERFLY AND MOTH COMMUNITIES IN SEMI-NATURAL GRASSLANDS BY CATTLE GRAZING (2004, methodology): “This was based partly on existing handbooks and especially on the results of a transect monitoring scheme of Macrolepidoptera of agricultural landscapes in Finland (Kuussaari et al. 2001, 2002).”
Random forests as a tool for ecohydrological distribution modelling (2007, background): “There are several reasons to do so (Mac Nally, 2000): (i) the model will gain robustness, with higher conﬁdence on future predictions, (ii) some causal relationships can possibly be indicated and (iii) the utilization of the model would become less costly.”
Analysis of factors implicated in the recent decline of Australia's mammal fauna (2007, methodology): “Hierarchical partitioning analysis (Mac Nally, 2000, 2002) was used to assist with the final selection of potential explanatory variables by eliminating those with higher shared than independent contributions influencing variation in the response variable, FAI.”
Modelling habitat and spatial distribution of an endangered longhorn beetle - A case study for saproxylic insect conservation (2007, methodology): “To estimate the total independent contribution of the single variables to the response, we ran a hierarchical partitioning procedure (MacNally, 2000).”
Determinants of the biogeographical distribution of butterflies in boreal regions (2006, methodology): “One recent approach to tackling problems of collinearity is the hierarchical partitioning (HP) method (Chevan & Sutherland, 1991; MacNally, 2000).”