2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecss.2018.04.030
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A semi-automated approach to classify and map ecological zones across the dune-beach interface

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Decision trees and other supervised machine learning approaches (e.g., random forest) attempt to model the relationship between a response and its predictors (Breiman 2001), offer powerful alternatives to traditional ecological modeling approaches (e.g., generalized linear models; De'ath and Fabricius 2000, Olden et al 2008), and have been increasingly applied in investigations of wildlife habitat use (Han et al 2017, Mi et al 2017, Cushman and Wasserman 2018, Carroll et al 2021, Rather et al 2021). We built decision trees by incorporating plot‐level data into a boosted C5.0 algorithm (Quinlan 1993), which we chose because of its nominal sensitivity to multicollinearity and unbalanced data, ability to manage missing values, and relative ease of interpretation (Guilherme et al 2018, Szilassi et al 2019, Moeinaddini et al 2020, Tanyu et al 2021, da Silveira et al 2022). Allowing for missing values was particularly important in selecting our modeling approach, as calculation of some values in our dataset was contingent on another value being non‐zero (e.g., we could not calculate average log diameter in plots that did not contain any logs).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Decision trees and other supervised machine learning approaches (e.g., random forest) attempt to model the relationship between a response and its predictors (Breiman 2001), offer powerful alternatives to traditional ecological modeling approaches (e.g., generalized linear models; De'ath and Fabricius 2000, Olden et al 2008), and have been increasingly applied in investigations of wildlife habitat use (Han et al 2017, Mi et al 2017, Cushman and Wasserman 2018, Carroll et al 2021, Rather et al 2021). We built decision trees by incorporating plot‐level data into a boosted C5.0 algorithm (Quinlan 1993), which we chose because of its nominal sensitivity to multicollinearity and unbalanced data, ability to manage missing values, and relative ease of interpretation (Guilherme et al 2018, Szilassi et al 2019, Moeinaddini et al 2020, Tanyu et al 2021, da Silveira et al 2022). Allowing for missing values was particularly important in selecting our modeling approach, as calculation of some values in our dataset was contingent on another value being non‐zero (e.g., we could not calculate average log diameter in plots that did not contain any logs).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ecosystem filed also take a lot of focus to implement the AL learning strategies over in order to classify and process its dataset. such studies we could find in [16][17][18].…”
mentioning
confidence: 95%
“…(2017) concluded that a support-vector machine outperformed other algorithms when classifying wetland habitat using UAV-derived imagery. Guilherme et al (2018) found that random forest (RF) algorithms yielded the best classification results when mapping coastal habitats compared to seven other machine learning algorithms. However, algorithms based on neural networks appear to outperform every other classifier when using good training data (Liu et al, 2018).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%