Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
D. Rumelhart, Geoffrey Hinton, Ronald Williams (1986)
Learning representations by back-propagating errorsNature, 323
Knuth Knuth, Stout Stout, Siemer Siemer, Decker Decker, Stedman Stedman (1992)
Risk management concepts for improving wildlife population decisions and public communication strategies.Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conferences, 57
Kohavi Kohavi (1995)
A study of cross‐validation and bootstrap for estimation and model selection.Proceedings of the International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, 14
H. Stern (1996)
Neural networks in applied statisticsTechnometrics, 38
S. Lek, A. Belaud, P. Baran, I. Dimopoulos, M. Delacoste (1996)
Role of some environmental variables in trout abundance models using neural networksAquatic Living Resources, 9
S. Lek, I. Dimopoulos, A. Fabre (1996)
Predicting phosphorus concentration and phosphorus load from watershed characteristics using backpropagation neural networksActa Oecologica-international Journal of Ecology, 17
B. Efron (1983)
Estimating the Error Rate of a Prediction Rule: Improvement on Cross-ValidationJournal of the American Statistical Association, 78
F. James, C. McCulloch (1990)
MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS IN ECOLOGY AND SYSTEMATICS: PANACEA OR PANDORA'S BOX?Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 21
Baran Baran, Lek Lek, Delacoste Delacoste, Belaud Belaud (1996)
Stochastic models that predict trouts population densities or biomass on macrohabitat scale.Hydrobiologia, 337
A. Weigend, D. Rumelhart, B. Huberman (1991)
Predicting sunspots and exchange rates with connectionist networks
F. Szalay (2000)
The Atlas of European Mammals. A. J. Mitchell-Jones , G. Amori , W. Bogdanowicz , B. Kryštufek , P. J. H. Reijnders , F. Spitzenberger , M. Stubbe , J. B. M. Thissen , V. Vohralik , J. ZimaThe Quarterly Review of Biology, 75
Breton Breton (1994)
La limitation des dégâts de sangliers par la pose de clôtures électriques dans le département de la Haute‐Marne.Bulletin Mensuel de l’Office National de la Chasse,, 191
B. Mapstone (1995)
Scalable Decision Rules for Environmental Impact Studies: Effect Size, Type I, and Type II ErrorsEcological Applications, 5
H. Lilliefors (1967)
On the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Normality with Mean and Variance UnknownJournal of the American Statistical Association, 62
Slate Slate, Owens Owens, Connolly Connolly, Simmons Simmons (1992)
Decision making for wildlife damage management.Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conferences, 57
H. Saarenmaa, N. Stone, L. Folse, J. Packard, W. Grant, M. Makela, R. Coulson (1988)
AN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MODELLING APPROACH TO SIMULATING ANIMAL/HABITAT INTERACTIONSEcological Modelling, 44
I. Seginer, T. Boulard, B. Bailey (1994)
Neural Network Models of the Greenhouse ClimateJournal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 59
M. Hanratty, F. Stay (1994)
Field Evaluation of the Littoral Ecosystem Risk Assessment Model's Predictions of the Effects of ChlorpyrifosJournal of Applied Ecology, 31
Vassant Vassant (1994)
Les techniques de prévention des dégâts de sanglier.Bulletin Mensuel de l’Office National de la Chasse,, 191
F. Spitz, S. Lek, I. Dimopoulos (1996)
NEURAL NETWORK MODELS TO PREDICT PENETRATION OF WILD BOAR INTO CULTIVATED FIELDSJournal of Biological Systems, 04
M. Edwards, D. Morse (1995)
The potential for computer-aided identification in biodiversity research.Trends in ecology & evolution, 10 4
C. Braak (1986)
Canonical Correspondence Analysis: A New Eigenvector Technique for Multivariate Direct Gradient AnalysisEcology, 67
S. Lek, M. Delacoste, Philippe Baran, I. Dimopoulos, J. Lauga, S. Aulagnier (1996)
Application of neural networks to modelling nonlinear relationships in ecologyEcological Modelling, 90
J. Guégan, S. Lek, T. Oberdorff (1998)
Energy availability and habitat heterogeneity predict global riverine fish diversityNature, 391
Anil Jain, R. Dubes, Chaur-Chin Chen (1987)
Bootstrap Techniques for Error EstimationIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, PAMI-9
T. Brey, A. Jarre-Teichmann, O. Borlich (1996)
Artificial neural network versus multiple linear regression: predicting P/B ratios from empirical dataMarine Ecology Progress Series, 140
M. Scardi (1996)
Artificial neural networks as empirical models for estimating phytoplankton productionMarine Ecology Progress Series, 139
Ron Kohavi (1995)
A Study of Cross-Validation and Bootstrap for Accuracy Estimation and Model Selection
Colasanti Colasanti (1991)
Discussions of the possible use of neural network algorithms in ecological modelling.Binary, 3
T. Kastens, Allen Featherstone (1996)
Feedforward Backpropagation Neural Networks in Prediction of Farmer Risk PreferencesEconometrics: Econometric & Statistical Methods - Special Topics eJournal
1. Decision making in management of environmental impact confronts the problem of analysing relationships in highly complex ecological systems. These relationships are generally non‐linear, and conventional techniques do not apply satisfactorily. The problem is equivalent to that of predicting the output of a black box. Artificial neural networks (ANN) have shown tremendous promise in modelling such situations. 2. The present work describes the development and validation of an ANN in modelling wildlife damage to farmland, a particular instance of ecological impact. An ANN approach was developed and tested using data from 200 damaged plots, and a control sample of 20 undamaged plots, described by 17 environmental characters. The dependent variable was the financial cost of impact per plot. 3. The predictive quality of the ANN models was evaluated through the ‘leave‐one‐out’ procedure. For 82% of predicted values, deviation from observed values is lower than 1780, that is 10% of the range of the observed values. The frequency of bad predictions depends on the minimum level of impact (critical effect size) considered. In France, compensation is given starting from a minimum level of 200 FF. At this level, the frequency of occurrence of Type I errors (predicted impact does not occur) is 7·11%. Different strategies of prevention of impact, using different threshold values for prevention, are analysed. Frequency of Type I errors increases, and that of Type II errors (occurrence of unpredicted impact) decreases as the threshold for prevention increases. 4. Sensitivity analysis allows the determination of the effect of seven quantitative variables on the cost of damage compensation. Proximity of a paved road, proximity and number of houses, and number of other buildings contribute negatively, and three other variables (proportion of the perimeter of the plot occupied by woody vegetation, density of the vegetation, and density of wild boar in the surrounding area) contribute positively to the predicted value. 5. Results show that the utility of impact prediction for prevention depends on the cost of errors and the absolute cost of prevention. 6. Finally, ANNs proved able to learn complex relationships between environmental variables and impact assessment, and to produce operationally relevant predictions. Good predictions can help managers to distribute efficiently their actions between prevention, protection and compensation.
Journal of Applied Ecology – Wiley
Published: Apr 1, 1999
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.