<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi Martin,<br>
<br>
Unfortunately, biomod is not able to deal with "user's weights"
and pseudo-absences sampling yet. In modeling with pseudo
absences sampling, some weights are automatically created to keep
a 0.5 prevalence.<br>
But, as consequence of your remark, I plane to add this
functionality soon in the new version of biomod (i.e. biomod2).<br>
<br>
Concerning the second point. Are you sure that it's not just an
automatic raster color ramp issue?<br>
Extrapolating model prediction on a big area must create some
kinds of outliers that may biased visualizations (larger values
scale).<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Damien<br>
<br>
<br>
On 17/07/2012 17:33, Martin Videla wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALuvYvqy-RkSF8wvS26h71TuF_ShVwRxpxSXabZdWWi4cK+xmQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Biomodellers!</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have a few questions:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">1) I’m trying to use the Yweight function to
weight presence
points according their georreferencing accuracy. I have these
data for presence
points but obviously not for pseudoabsences so I guess this is
causing a problem
when I run the models. This is the error message</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal">Error
in
`[.data.frame`(tr, , 4) : undefined columns selected</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal">So
my
question is how can I incorporate the georreferencing accuracy
when using
pseudoabsences?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">2) I run the models successfully and then I
projected them
using the Projection.raster function to a large region (Latin
America). The resulting
maps predict far more presences than expected. When I perform
the projection of
the exact same model to a smaller area (Central America) within
the range of
the species the maps look very different (better)! Does anyone
know what could
be the reason for such variation?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you!</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Martin </p>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
Martín Videla<br>
Centro de Investigaciones Entomológicas de Córdoba (CIEC)<br>
Faculdad de Ciencias Exactas,Fisicas y Naturales (FCEFyN)<br>
Universidad Nacional de Córdoba (UNC)<br>
Velez Sarfield 299, CP: 5000, Córdoba, Argentina<br>
TE: 0054351-4332090 int 43<br>
e-mail: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:videla.martin@gmail.com">videla.martin@gmail.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Biomod-commits mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Biomod-commits@lists.r-forge.r-project.org">Biomod-commits@lists.r-forge.r-project.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/biomod-commits">https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/biomod-commits</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>