4.6 Article

Sensitivity Analyses of Spatial Population Viability Analysis Models for Species at Risk and Habitat Conservation Planning

期刊

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY
卷 23, 期 1, 页码 225-229

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01066.x

关键词

conservation planning; metapopulation; population viability analysis; sensitivity analysis; uncertainty

资金

  1. Species at Risk Recovery Education
  2. Parks Canada
  3. British Columbia Ministry of Environment
  4. Centre for Applied Conservation Research
  5. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council postdoctoral fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Population viability analysis (PVA) is an effective framework for modeling species- and habitat-recovery efforts, but uncertainty in parameter estimates and model structure can lead to unreliable predictions. Integrating complex and often uncertain information into spatial PVA models requires that comprehensive sensitivity analyses be applied to explore the influence of spatial and nonspatial parameters on model predictions. We reviewed 87 analyses of spatial demographic PVA models of plants and animals to identify common approaches to sensitivity analysis in recent publications. In contrast to best practices recommended in the broader modeling community, sensitivity analyses of spatial PVAs were typically ad hoc, inconsistent, and difficult to compare. Most studies applied local approaches to sensitivity analyses, but few varied multiple parameters simultaneously. A lack of standards for sensitivity analysis and reporting in spatial PVAs has the potential to compromise the ability to learn collectively from PVA results, accurately interpret results in cases where model relationships include nonlinearities and interactions, prioritize monitoring and management actions, and ensure conservation-planning decisions are robust to uncertainties in spatial and nonspatial parameters. Our review underscores the need to develop tools for global sensitivity analysis and apply these to spatial PVA.

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

4.6
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