From Images to Insights: Explainable Biodiversity Monitoring with Plain Language Habitat Explanations

Masahiro Ryo; Yutong Zhou

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 24 references

From Images to Insights: Explainable Biodiversity Monitoring with Plain Language Habitat Explanations

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A single species photograph can drive a pipeline that ends in statistically grounded, plain-language statements about which climate variables cause its habitat preference.

desk verdict Honest pilot that assembles known parts into a new pipeline, but the causal estimates are not identified as written because the learned DAG omits the outcome variable. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10559 v2 pith:LSYDWIMP submitted 2025-06-12 cs.CV cs.AIcs.ET

Yutong Zhou , Masahiro Ryo This is my paper

classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.ET

keywords speciesdistributionmodelingcausalinferenceinterpretableecologicalAIexplainablebiodiversitymonitoringpseudo-absencesamplingclimatevariablesnaturallanguageexplanation

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper is trying to establish that a single photograph of an organism can feed an end-to-end pipeline whose output is a causal, human-readable explanation of the species' habitat preference. A photo is identified to species, its occurrence records are pulled from a global biodiversity database, background pseudo-absences are sampled, nineteen climate variables are attached to every point, a causal graph is learned among those variables, and the effect of the top climate variables on presence is estimated and rendered into rule-based or natural-language explanations. The pilot evidence consists of two species; the most concrete result is an estimated average treatment effect of 0.13 for mean temperature of the coldest quarter on the presence of the bugle plant Ajuga reptans, read as "milder winters help." The motivation is to make species distribution modeling accessible to non-specialists while keeping the causal chain and the numbers traceable.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the causal graph among the 19 climate variables, learned by a continuous-optimization DAG algorithm (the paper uses NOTEARS) from occurrence and pseudo-absence data. That graph is then treated as the structural causal model: a causal-inference library (DoWhy) selects the backdoor confounder set from the graph and estimates the average treatment effect of each candidate climate variable on presence. Everything downstream — the choice of top variables, the effect sizes, and the wording of the explanations — depends on this graph and the confounder set derived from it.

What would settle it

Run the same pipeline on a species for which true absence records exist (or use a climate-gradient experiment), and see whether the estimated ATE for the headline variable keeps its sign and magnitude; if the effect shifts or vanishes, the causal explanation depends on the pseudo-absence construction. A complementary check is to re-estimate the ATEs after adding a plausible unmeasured confounder such as a soil or land-cover variable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that image-based species recognition can be seamlessly joined to occurrence retrieval and causal inference so that the same system that says "this is a bee" can also say "this bee prefers warm, thermally stable environments" in a way backed by estimated effect sizes. The pipeline's logic is: identify the species with a vision-language model; retrieve recent, geo-referenced observations; sample background pseudo-absences with a spatial buffer; extract the 19 standard bioclimatic variables; learn a directed acyclic graph among those variables; use backdoor adjustment on that graph to estimate the average treatment effect of each top variable on presence; and finally generate explanations from templates or a large language model. On Ajuga reptans the estimated ATE of 0.13 for BIO11, the mean temperature of the coldest quarter, is interpreted as positive influence of mild winters, while a small negative ATE (-0.03) for BIO10 is interpreted as sensitivity to warm-season heat. The authors present the study as preliminary, with two pilot species and no systematic ecological validation yet.

Load-bearing premise

Everything hinges on treating the graph learned from 19 climate variables plus pseudo-absence data as the true causal structure, with no unmeasured confounders such as soil or competition, so the reported ATEs are only causal if that structure and the pseudo-absence treatment are correct.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A non-expert could photograph a species and receive a climate-habitat explanation with an effect size attached, removing the usual manual data-assembly and statistical steps.
The pipeline is species-agnostic by construction: any species with enough geo-referenced observations and climate coverage could pass through the same seven modules.
Every explanation sentence is traceable to an estimated ATE, so a reader can check the numerical basis of the qualitative claim.
As the authors state, the framework is at pilot stage; wider use in conservation or education would need more species and systematic validation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

I infer that the decisive validation would be to run the same pipeline on a set of species with well-established climate niche descriptions and compare the sign and rank of the ATEs against the published consensus; the paper does not do this.
I infer that the pseudo-absence procedure—buffer width, exclusion radius, and sampling density—involves choices, not data, and that different choices could move the ATEs enough to change the explanation, so a sensitivity analysis is a natural next step.
I infer that because the confounder set is limited to the 19 climate variables, any non-climatic driver such as soil, land cover, or biotic interactions that also influences occurrence is treated as unmeasured; adding such layers would materially strengthen the causal language.
A testable extension would be to apply the same visual-to-causal pipeline to rare or invasive species with sparse occurrence records and check whether the explanations change sensibly as the record count drops.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Read this one if you care about causal language in ML systems. The integration is genuinely new and the authors are honest, but the load-bearing causal claim doesn't hold as written.

The stress-test note is correct. Section 3.5 fits NOTEARS on the 19 bioclimatic variables alone; Section 3.6 then says the confounder set for the effect of a treatment on Presence is selected via the backdoor criterion from that DAG. A graph without the outcome cannot identify any adjustment set for the effect on the outcome. So the reported ATEs (0.13 for BIO11, -0.03 for BIO10) are not identified from the stated structural model, independent of the usual faithfulness and unmeasured-confounding worries. That is a real gap, not a quibble. The paper also gives bare point estimates with no standard errors or sensitivity checks, and the rule-based explanations are just deterministic functions of the same ATEs, so they don't provide independent support. The authors admit the ecological validity is unassessed.

What's good: the pipeline is clearly presented and the integration of image recognition with SDM, causal discovery, and LLM explanation is a legitimate new combination. The related work is properly cited and the components are standard. The two pilot studies show the system runs end to end and yields readable outputs. The writing is direct and the limitations are acknowledged.

The soft spots are all fixable. Include Presence in the graph learning, report uncertainty intervals, and ideally validate against known ecology or at least against a non-causal baseline. The template thresholds are arbitrary but not a problem for a demo.

I'd send this to peer review because the integration is novel enough and the flaws are correctable, but the referee should require the causal model to be specified correctly and the estimates to carry uncertainty. For a reading group, it's a useful case study in how easy it is to overstate causal claims.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an end-to-end pipeline, 'BioX', that takes a photograph of a species and outputs natural-language statements about habitat preferences. The pipeline connects BioCLIP species recognition to GBIF occurrence retrieval, pseudo-absence sampling, WorldClim bioclimatic extraction, NOTEARS causal graph learning, DoWhy-based average treatment effect estimation, and template/LLM explanation generation. The method is demonstrated on two pilot species, Osmia parietina and Ajuga reptans, with reported ATEs such as 0.13 for BIO11 and -0.03 for BIO10, and the authors conclude that the framework can answer 'why' questions about species distributions. The paper is framed as an ongoing project, and the authors state in the conclusion that the ecological validity of the explanations has not yet been systematically assessed.

Significance. If the causal claims held, the framework would be a genuinely useful integration of computer vision, species distribution modeling, and causal inference for accessible biodiversity monitoring. The open-source code, the two real-world pilot demonstrations, and the explicit shift from correlational language to causal estimates are strengths. The paper also names its own limitation that ecological validity has not been assessed, which is honest and appropriate for a preliminary report. However, the central causal identification is not established as written, so the significance of the reported results remains conditional on substantial revisions.

major comments (4)

[§3.5–§3.6] As written, the backdoor adjustment has no well-defined target graph. Section 3.5 estimates a NOTEARS DAG over the matrix X of 19 bioclimatic variables only, and Section 3.6 introduces the binary Presence outcome after the fact. A valid backdoor set for the effect of a treatment on an outcome requires a graph that contains both the treatment and the outcome and the edges between them; the graph learned from climate variables alone contains no presence node, so the 'automatically selected' confounder sets in §3.6 do not identify the ATEs reported in §4.2. Please include Presence as a node in the structure-learning step or explicitly state and justify a graph containing both climate variables and Presence, and re-run the analysis accordingly.
[§4.2] The central quantitative results are bare point estimates: ATEs = 0.13 for BIO11 and -0.03 for BIO10 are reported without standard errors, confidence intervals, propensity-score balance diagnostics, positivity checks, or sensitivity analyses. Calling these estimates 'statistically' is therefore unsupported. Add uncertainty quantification and robustness tests under different pseudo-absence draws, NOTEARS regularization strengths, and causal estimators before claiming statistical grounding.
[§3.3, §3.5, §3.6] The causal interpretation bundles several unverified assumptions: the observed distribution is generated by a faithful DAG, pseudo-absences behave like true absences, and there are no unmeasured confounders such as soil, land cover, biotic interactions, or sampling effort. None of these assumptions is tested, and the conclusion explicitly states that ecological validity has not been systematically assessed. At minimum, state these as testable assumptions with concrete checks, for example comparing results under alternative pseudo-absence strategies and adding key measured confounders such as land cover.
[§3.7] The explanation step is partly circular: the rule-based templates in §3.7 map the estimated ATE to phrases (ATE ≥ 0.1 becomes 'strongly promotes'), and the LLM is prompted to elaborate on the same causal estimates. The explanations therefore cannot provide independent support for the causal claim, although they can legitimately be described as interpretable renderings of the estimates. Please clarify this distinction explicitly in the text.

minor comments (4)

[§1] In the introduction, 'explain the findings in nature language' should read 'explain the findings in natural language'.
[Table 1] The rule-based explanation column is described as coming from 'feature importance scores', but Section 3.7 says the rule-based templates are driven by ATE thresholds; please make the description consistent.
[§4.1] The final data structure is said to be [Latitude, Longitude, BIO1, ..., BIO19, Presence (0/1)], yet Section 3.5 learns the graph from climate variables only; clarify whether Presence is included in structure learning or only in the downstream causal inference step.
[§3.7] The exact LLM prompts used for LLAMA3.3-70B are not included; providing them in an appendix would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the explanation text is generated from the ATE estimates, not used to derive them, so the derivation chain is one-way and self-contained.

full rationale

I walked the paper's claimed derivation chain and found no step that reduces, by construction or by self-citation, to its own inputs. The pipeline is sequential: image to species (BioCLIP), species to GBIF occurrences, occurrences plus pseudo-absence sampling to a Presence label, climate extraction to BIO1–BIO19, NOTEARS to a DAG among climate variables, DoWhy to ATE estimates, and finally rule-based/LLM text generated from those ATE values. Section 3.7's thresholds (e.g., 'If ATE≥0.1, generate High BIO strongly promotes SP. presence') make the explanations deterministic functions of the fitted ATEs, but the paper never claims the explanations are evidence for the ATEs; the production direction is explanation-from-estimate, not estimate-from-explanation. There is no self-citation load-bearing argument: the causal-discovery and inference tools cited (NOTEARS, DoWhy) are external, and the authors do not invoke any prior 'uniqueness' result of their own to force the graph choice. The skeptical concern that the backdoor adjustment is undefined because Presence is not included in the NOTEARS graph is a serious identifiability/correctness problem, but it is not a circular reduction of a derived result to an input; per the hard rules, a technical failure of causal identification belongs under correctness risk, not circularity score. The paper's own admission that 'the ecological validity of the explanations has not yet been systematically assessed' further confirms that the explanations are not presented as validating the causal estimates. Accordingly, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The pipeline's causal claims rest on a chain of strong assumptions: pseudo-absences stand in for true absences, observational GBIF records are unbiased, the 19 bioclimatic variables close the backdoor paths, and NOTEARS recovers the true DAG. None of these are validated, so the causal insights are better described as covariate-adjusted associations.

free parameters (6)

BioCLIP confidence threshold = 0.80
Hand-set cutoff to gate recognition results; changes which images reach the causal pipeline.
GBIF record cap = 1000
limit = 1000 records per species; affects geographic coverage and sample size.
Pseudo-absence buffer and exclusion radius = +/-1 degree buffer, 5 km exclusion
Defines background sampling area and removal of near-presence points; directly shapes negative labels and ATE estimates.
NOTEARS L1 regularization lambda = not reported
Controls graph sparsity; no value or sensitivity analysis given, so the causal graph structure is underdetermined.
ATE explanation thresholds = 0.1 and -0.05
Hand-set cutoffs in the rule-based templates; these map ATE values to qualitative statements such as strongly promotes.
Pseudo-absence count ratio = 2x presence points
Sampling intensity choice; affects class balance and model estimates.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The observed variables follow a DAG that NOTEARS can recover (causal Markov and faithfulness).
Invoked in section 3.5; without it the learned graph is just a sparse correlation structure.
domain assumption There are no unobserved confounders of climate variables and species presence beyond the 19 WorldClim variables.
Invoked in section 3.6 when DoWhy selects confounders only from the NOTEARS DAG; unmeasured factors such as soil, land cover, and biotic interactions are ignored.
domain assumption Pseudo-absence points are valid negative samples representing true absence conditions.
Invoked in section 3.3; if pseudo-absences are not comparable to true absences, all presence/absence estimates and ATEs are biased.
domain assumption GBIF human observations are a representative, unbiased sample of species occurrences after filtering.
Invoked in section 3.2; citizen-science data has known spatial and taxonomic bias, which can distort the fitted causal effects.
domain assumption Climate variables can be treated as causes of species occurrence at the 5 km grid scale, with no reciprocal or spatial-autocorrelation structure.
Invoked in sections 3.5 and 3.6; the DAG is learned among climate variables only and then directed at occurrence, ignoring spatial processes.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Images to Insights: Explainable Biodiversity Monitoring with Plain Language Habitat Explanations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LSYDWIMP

@misc{pith2026250610559,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Images to Insights: Explainable Biodiversity Monitoring with Plain Language Habitat Explanations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LSYDWIMP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10559}
}

read the original abstract

Explaining why the species lives at a particular location is important for understanding ecological systems and conserving biodiversity. However, existing ecological workflows are fragmented and often inaccessible to non-specialists. We propose an end-to-end visual-to-causal framework that transforms a species image into interpretable causal insights about its habitat preference. The system integrates species recognition, global occurrence retrieval, pseudo-absence sampling, and climate data extraction. We then discover causal structures among environmental features and estimate their influence on species occurrence using modern causal inference methods. Finally, we generate statistically grounded, human-readable causal explanations from structured templates and large language models. We demonstrate the framework on a bee and a flower species and report early results as part of an ongoing project, showing the potential of the multimodal AI assistant backed up by a recommended ecological modeling practice for describing species habitat in human-understandable language. Our code is available at: https://github.com/Yutong-Zhou-cv/BioX.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10559 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** From curiosity to causality. An explorer encounters bees and flowers in the wild and asks 5 questions. Our system answers them via image-based species identification, species distribution modeling with causal inference, and natural language explanation. Abstract. Explaining why the species lives at a particular location is important for understanding ecological systems and conserving biodiversity. However, existing… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** An overview of the visual-to-causal ecological pipeline. 3.1 Species Recognition First, we adopt BioCLIP[20], a vision-language foundation model specifically designed to recognize the species from the input image. BioCLIP is based on the CLIP architecture[17] and trained on the TREEOFLIFE-10M dataset, a largescale structured collection of over 10 million labeled images covering 454,103 unique classes spanning anima… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[1]

Gbif | global biodiversity information facility,https://www.gbif.org/, accessed: 2025-06-08

work page 2025
[2]

Natural earth | land,https://www.naturalearthdata.com/downloads/ 10m-physical-vectors/10m-land/, accessed: 2025-05-20

work page 2025
[3]

Worldclim | global climate and weather data,https://www.worldclim.org/data/ index.html, accessed: 2025-06-01

work page 2025
[4]

Methods in ecology and evolution15(6), 1129–1145 (2024)

Balk,M.A.,Bradley,J.,Maruf,M.,Altintaş,B.,Bakiş,Y.,BartJr,H.L.,Breen,D., Florian, C.R., Greenberg, J., Karpatne, A., et al.: A fair and modular image-based workflow for knowledge discovery in the emerging field of imageomics. Methods in ecology and evolution15(6), 1129–1145 (2024)

work page 2024
[5]

Barbet-Massin, M., Jiguet, F., Albert, C.H., Thuiller, W.: Selecting pseudo- absences for species distribution models: How, where and how many? Methods in ecology and evolution3(2), 327–338 (2012)

work page 2012
[6]

Multimedia tools and applications for environmental & biodiversity informatics pp

Botella, C., Joly, A., Bonnet, P., Monestiez, P., Munoz, F.: A deep learning ap- proach to species distribution modelling. Multimedia tools and applications for environmental & biodiversity informatics pp. 169–199 (2018)

work page 2018
[7]

Annual review of ecology and systematics 27(1), 597–623 (1996)

Brown, J.H., Stevens, G.C., Kaufman, D.M.: The geographic range: size, shape, boundaries, and internal structure. Annual review of ecology and systematics 27(1), 597–623 (1996)

work page 1996
[8]

bioRxiv pp

Brun, P., Karger, D.N., Zurell, D., Descombes, P., de Witte, L.C., de Lutio, R., Wegner, J.D., Zimmermann, N.E.: Rank-based deep learning from citizen-science data to model plant communities. bioRxiv pp. 2023–05 (2023)

work page 2023

Show all 24 references

[9]

Nature Communications14(1), 2607 (2023)

Dee, L.E., Ferraro, P.J., Severen, C.N., Kimmel, K.A., Borer, E.T., Byrnes, J.E., Clark, A.T., Hautier, Y., Hector, A., Raynaud, X., et al.: Clarifying the effect of biodiversity on productivity in natural ecosystems with longitudinal data and methods for causal inference. Nat...

2023
[10]

International journal of climatology37(12), 4302–4315 (2017)

Fick,S.E.,Hijmans,R.J.:Worldclim2:new1-kmspatialresolutionclimatesurfaces for global land areas. International journal of climatology37(12), 4302–4315 (2017)

2017
[11]

GBIF.org User: Occurrence download (2025).https://doi.org/ 10.15468/DL.WMDGSS,https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/download/ 0007032-250827131500795

2025 doi
[12]

GBIF.org User: Occurrence download (2025).https://doi.org/ 10.15468/DL.D7Q2JD,https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/download/ 0016160-250827131500795

2025 doi
[13]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.23883 (2025)

Gu, J., Stevens, S., Campolongo, E.G., Thompson, M.J., Zhang, N., Wu, J., Kopanev, A., Mai, Z., White, A.E., Balhoff, J., et al.: Bioclip 2: Emergent proper- ties from scaling hierarchical contrastive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.23883 (2025)

2025
[14]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.02226 (2019)

Lachapelle, S., Brouillard, P., Deleu, T., Lacoste-Julien, S.: Gradient-based neural dag learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.02226 (2019)

2019 arXiv
[15]

Ecological Indicators165, 112188 (2024)

Luo, W., Yang, J., Wang, Y., Cui, X., Zhang, L., Zhao, T., Xue, K., Du, J., Song, X., Hao, Y.: Causal analysis reveals that ecosystem structure and function are temperature-dominated but relatively independent. Ecological Indicators165, 112188 (2024)

2024
[16]

Ollama model library (dec 2024),https://ollama

Meta Platforms, I.: Llama 3.3. Ollama model library (dec 2024),https://ollama. com/library/llama3.3, released under the Llama 3.3 Community License

2024
[17]

Zhou and M

Radford, A., Kim, J.W., Hallacy, C., Ramesh, A., Goh, G., Agarwal, S., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Mishkin, P., Clark, J., et al.: Learning transferable visual models from 8 Y. Zhou and M. Ryo natural language supervision. In: International conference on machine learning. pp. 8748...

2021
[18]

bioRxiv pp

Santos, M.J., Zu, P., Zuppinger-Dingley, D., Eppinga, M.B., Gupta, A., Pen- nekamp, F., Li, C., Mayor, S., Stefanini, C., Tokumoto, Y., et al.: Causal discovery in biodiversity-mediated social-ecological systems. bioRxiv pp. 2024–05 (2024)

2024
[19]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.04216 (2020)

Sharma, A., Kiciman, E.: Dowhy: An end-to-end library for causal inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.04216 (2020)

2020 arXiv
[20]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Stevens, S., Wu, J., Thompson, M.J., Campolongo, E.G., Song, C.H., Carlyn, D.E., Dong, L., Dahdul, W.M., Stewart, C., Berger-Wolf, T., et al.: Bioclip: A vision foundation model for the tree of life. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern rec...

2024
[21]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Van Horn, G., Mac Aodha, O., Song, Y., Cui, Y., Sun, C., Shepard, A., Adam, H., Perona, P., Belongie, S.: The inaturalist species classification and detection dataset. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 8769–8778 (2018)

2018
[22]

International Journal of Remote Sensing46(2), 661–685 (2025)

Wang, L., Diao, C., Lu, Y.: The role of remote sensing in species distribution models: a review. International Journal of Remote Sensing46(2), 661–685 (2025)

2025
[23]

In: International conference on machine learning

Yu, Y., Chen, J., Gao, T., Yu, M.: Dag-gnn: Dag structure learning with graph neural networks. In: International conference on machine learning. pp. 7154–7163. PMLR (2019)

2019
[24]

Advances in neural information processing systems31(2018)

Zheng, X., Aragam, B., Ravikumar, P.K., Xing, E.P.: Dags with no tears: Continu- ous optimization for structure learning. Advances in neural information processing systems31(2018)

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Gbif | global biodiversity information facility,https://www.gbif.org/, accessed: 2025-06-08

work page 2025

[2] [2]

Natural earth | land,https://www.naturalearthdata.com/downloads/ 10m-physical-vectors/10m-land/, accessed: 2025-05-20

work page 2025

[3] [3]

Worldclim | global climate and weather data,https://www.worldclim.org/data/ index.html, accessed: 2025-06-01

work page 2025

[4] [4]

Methods in ecology and evolution15(6), 1129–1145 (2024)

Balk,M.A.,Bradley,J.,Maruf,M.,Altintaş,B.,Bakiş,Y.,BartJr,H.L.,Breen,D., Florian, C.R., Greenberg, J., Karpatne, A., et al.: A fair and modular image-based workflow for knowledge discovery in the emerging field of imageomics. Methods in ecology and evolution15(6), 1129–1145 (2024)

work page 2024

[5] [5]

Barbet-Massin, M., Jiguet, F., Albert, C.H., Thuiller, W.: Selecting pseudo- absences for species distribution models: How, where and how many? Methods in ecology and evolution3(2), 327–338 (2012)

work page 2012

[6] [6]

Multimedia tools and applications for environmental & biodiversity informatics pp

Botella, C., Joly, A., Bonnet, P., Monestiez, P., Munoz, F.: A deep learning ap- proach to species distribution modelling. Multimedia tools and applications for environmental & biodiversity informatics pp. 169–199 (2018)

work page 2018

[7] [7]

Annual review of ecology and systematics 27(1), 597–623 (1996)

Brown, J.H., Stevens, G.C., Kaufman, D.M.: The geographic range: size, shape, boundaries, and internal structure. Annual review of ecology and systematics 27(1), 597–623 (1996)

work page 1996

[8] [8]

bioRxiv pp

Brun, P., Karger, D.N., Zurell, D., Descombes, P., de Witte, L.C., de Lutio, R., Wegner, J.D., Zimmermann, N.E.: Rank-based deep learning from citizen-science data to model plant communities. bioRxiv pp. 2023–05 (2023)

work page 2023