↓ Skip to main content

Integrating expert knowledge and ecological niche models to estimate Mexican primates’ distribution

Overview of attention for article published in Primates, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
Title
Integrating expert knowledge and ecological niche models to estimate Mexican primates’ distribution
Published in
Primates, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10329-018-0673-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edith Calixto-Pérez, Jesús Alarcón-Guerrero, Gabriel Ramos-Fernández, Pedro Américo D. Dias, Ariadna Rangel-Negrín, Monica Améndola-Pimenta, Cristina Domingo, Víctor Arroyo-Rodríguez, Gilberto Pozo-Montuy, Braulio Pinacho-Guendulain, Tania Urquiza-Haas, Patricia Koleff, Enrique Martínez-Meyer

Abstract

Ecological niche modeling is used to estimate species distributions based on occurrence records and environmental variables, but it seldom includes explicit biotic or historical factors that are important in determining the distribution of species. Expert knowledge can provide additional valuable information regarding ecological or historical attributes of species, but the influence of integrating this information in the modeling process has been poorly explored. Here, we integrated expert knowledge in different stages of the niche modeling process to improve the representation of the actual geographic distributions of Mexican primates (Ateles geoffroyi, Alouatta pigra, and A. palliata mexicana). We designed an elicitation process to acquire information from experts and such information was integrated by an iterative process that consisted of reviews of input data by experts, production of ecological niche models (ENMs), and evaluation of model outputs to provide feedback. We built ENMs using the maximum entropy algorithm along with a dataset of occurrence records gathered from a public source and records provided by the experts. Models without expert knowledge were also built for comparison, and both models, with and without expert knowledge, were evaluated using four validation metrics that provide a measure of accuracy for presence-absence predictions (specificity, sensitivity, kappa, true skill statistic). Integrating expert knowledge to build ENMs produced better results for potential distributions than models without expert knowledge, but a much greater improvement in the transition from potential to realized geographic distributions by reducing overprediction, resulting in better representations of the actual geographic distributions of species. Furthermore, with the combination of niche models and expert knowledge we were able to identify an area of sympatry between A. palliata mexicana and A. pigra. We argue that the inclusion of expert knowledge at different stages in the construction of niche models in an explicit and systematic fashion is a recommended practice as it produces overall positive results for representing realized species distributions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 13%
Student > Master 10 11%
Researcher 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 31 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 38 43%
Environmental Science 11 13%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Computer Science 2 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 31 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 March 2019.
All research outputs
#13,385,033
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from Primates
#751
of 1,018 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,970
of 326,642 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Primates
#9
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,018 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,642 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.