4.7 Article

A comparison of modeling techniques to predict juvenile 0+fish species occurrences in a large river system

期刊

ECOLOGICAL INFORMATICS
卷 6, 期 5, 页码 276-285

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2011.05.001

关键词

Machine learning; Young-of-the-year fishes (YOY); Predictive models; Habitat variables; Large rivers; France; Restoration tools

类别

资金

  1. National Association for Research and Technology (ANRT)
  2. Hydrosphere Society (CIFRE) [383/2008]
  3. Voies Navigables de France (VNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Even if European river management and restoration are largely supported by the use of reliable tools, these tools are most often generalist and provide only initial leads of alteration sources. Acknowledging that young-of-the-year (YOY) fish assemblages are highly dependent on riverine habitat conditions, the development of a YOY-based tool might be very useful or even essential in the design and implementation of conservation or restoration plan of large rivers, in measuring more straight-forward the losses and gains of hydro-ecological functionalities. In the past 20 years, new modeling techniques have emerged from a growing sophistication of statistical model applied to ecology. Machine learning methods (ML) are now recognized as holding great promise for the advancement of understanding and prediction of ecological phenomena. The aim of this work was to select the appropriate statistical technique to model YOY assemblages according to different meso-scale habitat variables that are meaningful to planners. To do this, two Machine Learning methods, Classification and Regression Trees (CART) and Boosted Regression Trees (BRT), were compared to Generalized Linear Models (GLM). We modeled the occurrence of 9 species from the Seine River basin (France) in order to compare models abilities to accurately predict the presence and absence of each species. BRT appeared to be the best technique for modeling 0+ fish occurrences in our dataset. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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