SENSITIVITY OF SPECIES HABITAT-RELATIONSHIP MODEL PERFORMANCE TO FACTORS OF SCALE

89 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Two alternative evaluation metrics to replace the true skill statistic in the assessment of species distribution models (2019, background): “Of course in rarer situations, strictly considering omission errors in model evaluation may be desirable such as when assessing the impacts of decisions on vulnerable species (Karl et al. 2000).”
Evaluating predictive models of species’ distributions: criteria for selecting optimal models (2003, background): “This latter form of apparent commission error has recently been recognized in presence/absence data sets where inventories were extensive yet incomplete (Boone and Krohn, 1999; Karl et al., 2000; Schaefer and Krohn, 2002; Stauffer et al., 2002).”
Utility and limitations of species richness metrics for conservation planning (2006, background): “The latter adjustment reduces the area predicted to be suitable for each species (Karl et al., 2000).”
Characterizing and predicting species distributions across environments and scales: Argentine ant occurrences in the eye of the beholder (2009, background): “Taken together, these findings illustrate that care should be exercised to match the spatial resolution of predictions to the environmental correlates used to create the models (Karl et al., 2000; McPherson et al., 2006).”