Ecological Archives A025-078-A3
Katherine J. Willis, Alistair W. R. Seddon, Peter R. Long, Elizabeth S. Jeffers, Neil Caithness, Milo Thurston, Mathijs G. D. Smit, Randi Hagemann, and Marc Macias-Fauria. 2015. Remote assessment of locally important ecological features across landscapes: how representative of reality? Ecological Applications 25:1290–1302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/14-1431.1
Appendix C. Sensitivity analysis of discrete wavelet transform on the LEFT output of the Vulnerability layer (Figure).
Fig. C1. Sensitivity analysis of discrete wavelet transform on the LEFT output of the Vulnerability layer. (A) Example of changing the mother wavelet. Applied to the highest resolution layer (1 × 1 cell, ~0.9 km²). Note that the discretization artefact does not depend on the selection of the mother wavelet, suggesting it is a consistent feature not linked to the selection of any particular algorithm. (B) Wavelet transform with no offset (upper), 50-cell offset (middle), and 100-cell offset (lower). Note that the discretization artefact is sensitive to the offset, as it disappears at large offsets. Agreement statistics between this layer and the FIELD-generated layer do not change much with offset (Appendix D), suggesting a very minor influence of the artefact on the agreement statistics between the two maps.