4.7 Review

Outstanding Challenges in the Transferability of Ecological Models

期刊

TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION
卷 33, 期 10, 页码 790-802

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE LONDON
DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2018.08.001

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [DE170100841, DE140100701]
  2. IOMRC (UWA/AIMS/CSIRO) collaborative Postdoctoral Fellowship
  3. Australian Government's National Environmental Science Programme (NESP)
  4. Swiss National Science Foundation [PZ00P3_168136/1]
  5. German Science Foundation [ZU 361/1-1, DO 786/10-1]
  6. Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions [CE11001000104]
  7. USDA [17-8130-0570-CA]
  8. DEFRA
  9. US Navy Cooperative Agreement [N62470-15-2-8003]
  10. Spencer Gulf Ecosystem Development Initiative
  11. Goyder Institute for Water Research [CA-16-04]
  12. FEDER/COMPETE 2020 [IF/00266/2013/CP1168/CT0001]
  13. FCT
  14. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [PZ00P3_168136] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)
  15. Australian Research Council [DE140100701, DE170100841] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Predictive models are central to many scientific disciplines and vital for informing management in a rapidly changing world. However, limited understanding of the accuracy and precision of models transferred to novel conditions (their 'transferability') undermines confidence in their predictions. Here, 50 experts identified priority knowledge gaps which, if filled, will most improve model transfers. These are summarized into six technical and six fundamental challenges, which underlie the combined need to intensify research on the determinants of ecological predictability, including species traits and data quality, and develop best practices for transferring models. Of high importance is the identification of a widely applicable set of transferability metrics, with appropriate tools to quantify the sources and impacts of prediction uncertainty under novel conditions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据