Home
Mission
Overview of Project
Project Staff
Sponsors
Achievements
Checking, Illustrations
Upcoming Activities
Id and Species Lists
Protea Information
Protea Gallery
Growing Proteas
Interim Dist. Maps
Publications
Afrikaanse Inligting
Bayesian modelling - Predicting where proteas occur naturally
For each map the probability of a species presence is mapped on a scale from green (very low) to red (very high). There are 10 shades shown each of about 10%, but sometimes the intervals are lower as the upper limit is the highest level of prediction for the species. Some species have a high prediction (almost 100%), whereas some rarer species are poorly predicted. The highest level of prediction is given below as a percentage.
Not shown is the varience (or uncertainty) of the predictions - these are available for each species. Usually the "funny areas" have a high uncertainty. Also, poorly predicted species usually have a high uncertainty as well - in these cases it is only by comparing the probability versus the variability that a reasonable picture of distribution can be achieved.
Aulax cancellata 90.5%
Aulax pallasia 95.4%
Aulax umbellata 99.8%
Brabejum stellatifolium 99.8%
Diastella fraterna 97.1%
Diastalla myrtifolia 61.6% - not very high but a good map!
Diastalla thymelaeoides 98.8%
Hakea drupacea 98.3%
Hakea gibbosa 95.5%
Leucadendron album 99.2%
Leucadendron arcuatum 98.8%
Leucadendron argenteum 99.3%
Leucadendron barkarae 87.9%
Leucadendron bonum 76.3% - not too good!
Leucadendron brunioides 97.1%
Leucadendron burchellii 56.0% - not very good!
Leucadendron cadens 94.0%
Leucadendron conicum 99.7%
Leucadendron flexuosum 59.5% - not a good prediction!
Leucadendron laureolum 99.92%
Leucadendron modestum 99.9%
Leucadendron muirii 98.0%
Leucadendron nervosum 75.5%
Leucadendron rubrum 99.5%
Leucadendron salignum 100.0% - top that!
Leucadendron xanthoconus 99.8%
Protea acaulos 99.8%
Protea acuminata 94.2%
Protea amplexicaulis 98.8%
Protea angustata 94.6%
Protea aristata 86.4%
Protea aurea 95.0%
Protea caespitosa 97.5%
Protea canaliculata 98.3%
Protea convexa 90.6%
Protea cordatum 93.4%
Protea coronata 99.6%
Protea coronata Comparison of Protea Atlas data and Bayesian modelling
Protea coronata Protea Atlas data on its own.
Protea coronata A closeup showing Atlas data (black dots) for Pr coronata (coloured dots) and the model predictions. Note the fits and filling in of gaps!
Protea compacta 99.0%
Protea cryophila 85.3%
Protea cynaroides 99.998% - beat that!
Protea decurrens 77.8%
Protea denticulata%
Protea effusa 87.8%
Protea eximia 99.4%
Protea foliosa 96.4%
Protea glabra 99.2% but some leakage into the Karoo
Protea holosericea 62%
Protea humiflora 97.2%
Protea inopina 28.2% - one of the worst! Not much of a prediction!
Protea intonsa 94.8%
Protea laevis 99.4%
Protea lanceolata 99.0%
Protea laurifolia 99.91%
Protea lepidocarpodendron 99.7%
Protea longifolia 99.3%
Protea lorea 76.2% - not too good! Map not too bad though.
Protea lorifolia 99.8%
Protea magnifica 93.9%
Protea montana 92.6% - something funny happened here : this cannot be Pr montana! Interestingly all the high altitude Swartberg endemics give the same problem.
Protea montana Closeup: From the Protea Atlas data the Bayesian Modelling is all wrong - any ideas?
Protea nana 91.7%
Protea neriifolia 99.6%
Protea nitida 99.86%
Protea obtusifolia 99.5%
Protea pendula 96.7%
Protea piscina 98.8%
Protea pruinosa 73.6% - not too good! Another Groot Swartbert endemic.
Protea punctata 99.97%
Protea recondita 92.9%
Protea repens 99.97%
Protea restionifolia 84.1%
Protea revoluta 96.1%
Protea rupicola 89.2%
Protea scabra 98.3%
Protea scorzonerifolia 76.7% - not too good! Map not too bad though.
Protea speciosa 99.5%
Protea scolymocephala 94.8%
Protea scolopendriifolia 97.5%
Protea scabriuscula 97.2%
Protea stokoei 56.0% - not very good! Map not too bad though.
Protea subulifolia 95.2%
Protea sulphurea 97.4%
Protea susannae 99.1%
Protea tenax 95.8%
Protea venusta 77.7% - not too good! Another Groot Swartbert endemic.
Protea vogtsiae 93.1%
Protea witzenbergiana 95.6%
Summarizing species richness. Two maps are provided:
1. The Protea Atlas data showing richness as atlassed: this varies from 0 (no colour) through green ( = 1 species) to red ( > 18 species) to a maximum of 38 species
2. The Bayesian prediction showing richness obtained by summing all the probabilities for the modelled species above: This varies from a minimum of 0.75 species (green ( < 1.75 species) to 17.5 species (red > 15.8 species)
Note how the species richness is greatly exaggerated by the modelling - we may have to correct for uncertainty to get a better fit.
Back Protea Ecology