Taxon-and-Area Invariances, Maximum Entropy, and the Species-Area Relationship (A Reply to Harte et al.)

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11620%2F13%3A10188946" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11620/13:10188946 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/668822" target="_blank" >http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/668822</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/668822" target="_blank" >10.1086/668822</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Taxon-and-Area Invariances, Maximum Entropy, and the Species-Area Relationship (A Reply to Harte et al.)

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Harte et al. (2009, 2013) argue that maximum entropy theory for ecology (METE) predicts a universal shape of species-area relationship (SAR), which is independent of the focal taxon. They argue that a "biological meaningful" splitting of the focal taxonjust increases the amount of information available, which consequently leads to a more accurate prediction, which is understandably different from a less accurate prediction. They state that such splitting does not violate the universality that was challenged by Sizling et al. (2011). Although we agree that the METE is mathematically consistent, assuming that the constraints used for calculating the most likely state are appropriate (namely, eq. [1c] in Harte et al. 2008, which provides the only biologically relevant constraints; the other constraints are mathematical necessities), we feel that Harte et al. (2013) miss our point. While METE focuses on the most likely prediction of a single observation-which may be the same regardless of

Název v anglickém jazyce

Taxon-and-Area Invariances, Maximum Entropy, and the Species-Area Relationship (A Reply to Harte et al.)

Popis výsledku anglicky

Harte et al. (2009, 2013) argue that maximum entropy theory for ecology (METE) predicts a universal shape of species-area relationship (SAR), which is independent of the focal taxon. They argue that a "biological meaningful" splitting of the focal taxonjust increases the amount of information available, which consequently leads to a more accurate prediction, which is understandably different from a less accurate prediction. They state that such splitting does not violate the universality that was challenged by Sizling et al. (2011). Although we agree that the METE is mathematically consistent, assuming that the constraints used for calculating the most likely state are appropriate (namely, eq. [1c] in Harte et al. 2008, which provides the only biologically relevant constraints; the other constraints are mathematical necessities), we feel that Harte et al. (2013) miss our point. While METE focuses on the most likely prediction of a single observation-which may be the same regardless of

Druh

O - Ostatní výsledky

CEP obor

EH - Ekologie – společenstva

OECD FORD obor

—

Projekt

<a href="/cs/project/GAP505%2F11%2F2387" target="_blank" >GAP505/11/2387: Limity druhového bohatství: makroekologická analýza evolučních a ekologických procesů podmiňujících diverzitu na povrchu Země</a><br>

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2013

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů