4.8 Article

Making ecological models adequate

期刊

ECOLOGY LETTERS
卷 21, 期 2, 页码 153-166

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ele.12893

关键词

appropriate complexity modelling; coarse graining; disease modelling; ecosystems restoration models; environmental management models; extinction risk assessment; hierarchical modelling

类别

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [1246305]
  2. EPSRC [EP/I013717/1]
  3. NSF DEB EEID [1518681]
  4. NSF DEB RAPID [1641145]
  5. U.S. Geological Survey's Greater Everglades Priority Ecosystem Science
  6. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  7. Division Of Mathematical Sciences [1246305] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Critical evaluation of the adequacy of ecological models is urgently needed to enhance their utility in developing theory and enabling environmental managers and policymakers to make informed decisions. Poorly supported management can have detrimental, costly or irreversible impacts on the environment and society. Here, we examine common issues in ecological modelling and suggest criteria for improving modelling frameworks. An appropriate level of process description is crucial to constructing the best possible model, given the available data and understanding of ecological structures. Model details unsupported by data typically lead to over parameterisation and poor model performance. Conversely, a lack of mechanistic details may limit a model's ability to predict ecological systems' responses to management. Ecological studies that employ models should follow a set of model adequacy assessment protocols that include: asking a series of critical questions regarding state and control variable selection, the determinacy of data, and the sensitivity and validity of analyses. We also need to improve model elaboration, refinement and coarse graining procedures to better understand the relevancy and adequacy of our models and the role they play in advancing theory, improving hind and forecasting, and enabling problem solving and management.

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

4.8
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