SDMANNING at ASUB.EDU
Tue Sep 3 18:16:56 CDT 2002
Also, it seems likely that in some cases, when it is a race against time or
competing interests to save an endangered but poorly collected species or
ecosystem, the models can be used to predict and thus designate areas most
urgently needing protection at least temporarily until field work confirms
or refutes the predictions of the models, based on whatever climatic or
ecological data are available. The models could also be used to prioritize
locations for fieldwork to be undertaken.
At 10:05 AM 9/3/02 -0700, Richard Jensen wrote:
>One thing that seems to have been overlooked is that, if the models are
>fundamentally sound, the distributions they predict might suggest areas where
>we should be looking for certain taxa. If we then discover the taxa are
>that reinforces the model; if the taxa are not there, that tells us the model
>needs refining. Either way, Tom is right - we must rely on field work
>verify the distributions predicted by the models.
>Thomas DiBenedetto wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robert Mesibov
> > ....
> > While I respect the efforts and intentions of range modellers, I can't help
> > thinking that modelling is no substitute for field work,...
> > I wonder about the goals of predictive range modellers. I understand
> that if
> > one were to have a well-working model, capable of predicting areas where
> > particular species might be found, that that might be an interesting thing.
> > However I dont see that as being really very useful. My instinct would
> be to
> > agree wholeheartedly with Robert about the primacy of observations in the
> > field when it comes to defining the actual range of species.
> > This is not to say however, that I dont see great use for predictive
> > but it is not for the predictions per se. As I see it, the model serves
> as a
> > vehicle for organizing our knowledge of the factors that influence
> > distributions. The models will incorporate some factors, may choose not to
> > incorporate others, and will necessarily define relationships between the
> > factors. All of this equals a complex hypothesis regarding the causes for
> > particular distributions. Armed with the output of such models, we can then
> > examine real-world distributions as a test of the models. And in such a
> > manner, we can refine the models until we arrive at a model that best
> > indicates that which we find in nature. We will then have reason to
> claim to
> > having increased our knowledge of why species are distributed as they are.
> > Yet I constantly hear discussions of these models that seem to indicate
> > their proponents are not so much focussed on seeing the models as formal,
> > general hypotheses, but as useful predictors of actual occurences. Even if
> > they were, I dont see that as anywhere near their most valuable use.
> > Tom diBenedetto
>Richard J. Jensen TEL: 574-284-4674
>Department of Biology FAX: 574-284-4716
>Saint Mary's College E-mail: rjensen at saintmarys.edu
>Notre Dame, IN 46556 http://www.saintmarys.edu/~rjensen
More information about the Taxacom