Building sets of continuous and ordinal neutral landscape models matching real-world value distributions and correlations


Abstract

A neutral landscape model (NLM) creates a virtual landscape that mimics a real-world landscape sufficiently for landscape ecologists to explore the effects of spatial patterns on ecological processes without the restrictions of real-world experimentation. While a range of NLMs have been developed, little has been presented in terms of creating NLMs with continuous or ordinal values that more closely mimic real-world landscapes. This is important for more applied questions there is also a need to produce NLMs that mimic real landscape values when there are questions about how changes in real landscape patterns may affect real landscape processes. Through the use of three key underlying methods (i) rank rescaling, (ii) blending, and (iii) Kendall’s rank correlation matrix, a workflow is presented that is capable of building a set of continuous and ordinal NLMs that match real-world value distributions and rank correlations. The accuracy and precision of the workflow is demonstrated using an example for a real-world landscape in New Zealand. Accuracy is shown to be high, but precision varies as a function of landscape heterogeneity, with less precise results with more homogenous NLMs. The developed workflow is implemented in the open source NLMpy Python software package, but as the individual methods and hence combined workflow rely solely on commonly used numeric and statistical procedures, these methods and workflow could be easily reimplemented in other programming languages and software.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].