The purpose of the study was to explore and compare three different methods for modelling potential natural vegetation (PNV), a hypothetic natural state of vegetation that shows nature's biotic potential in the absence of human influence and disturbance. The vegetation was mapped in a south-central Norwegian mountain region, in a 34.2 km2 area around the village of Beitostølen, in 2009. The actual vegetation map (AVM) formed the basis for the development of PNV using three different modelling methods: (1) an expert-based manual modelling (EMM), (2) rule-based envelope GIS-modelling (RBM), and (3) a statistical predictive GIS-modelling method (Maxent). The article shows that the three modelling methods have different advantages, challenges and preconditions. The findings indicate that: (1) the EMM method should preferably be used only as a supplementary method in highly disturbed areas, (2) both the RBM and the Maxent methods perform well, (3) RBM performs especially well, but also Maxent are more objective methods than EMM and they are much easier to develop and re-run after model validation, (4) Maxent probably underestimates the potential distribution of some vegetation types, whereas RBM overestimates, (5) the Maxent output is relative probabilities of distribution, giving higher model variation than RBM.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hemsing et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: