Timeline for Distinguishing corridors from fragments in a habitat map
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 29, 2018 at 2:08 | vote | accept | M514 | ||
| Apr 23, 2018 at 16:55 | comment | added | Jeffrey Evans | This is always a trade off but the minimal mapping unit should account for this given hypothesis. But, you also have to keep in mind that the balance is that the model exhibits a certain degree of uncertainty and you are treating the result as an absolute. Honestly, to support your assertion, the landscape should be treated as a probabilistic gradient and not a binomial process. This type of filtering is a long accepted practice in representing more functional landscapes. Unless the model included a term accounting for spatial structure in the estimates, spatial uncertainly is a reality. | |
| Apr 23, 2018 at 16:33 | comment | added | Kamo | perhaps applying a "salter and pepper" filter may have the effect of removing small important habitat areas for the target species connecting fragments (although sometimes sub-optimal quality areas). I would decide applying such a filter based on the dispersal characteristics of the species and the spatial resolution of the data. A bird (with generally higher dispersal ability) may use those small patches while an amphibian (with comparably lower dispersal ability) may not. Just a thought.. | |
| Apr 23, 2018 at 16:11 | history | answered | Jeffrey Evans | CC BY-SA 3.0 |