Kujala et al (2018) Not all data are equal: Influence of data type and amount in spatial conservation prioritisation - Data

Data for Kujala et al (2018) Not all data are equal: Influence of data type and amount in spatial conservation prioritisation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(11): 2249-2261. <br><a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13084">https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13084</a><br><br>Tables gives simulation results where 1) new species is added to a prioritisation done without ("_BD_n20_") or with costs ("_cost_n20_"); 2) landscape condition is accounted for but it affects onpy p-proportion of the species; and 3) condition layer is changed by x%. Table headings correspond to:<br><br><div><b>n_B</b> = number of species used in the prioritisation</div><div><b>p</b> = proportion of species affected by local condition</div><div><b>x</b> = average change in condition values</div><div><b>cor</b> = spatial correlation (Spearman's rank coefficient) between priorities and the added/changed layer values before addition/change</div><div><b>exp</b> = expected average change in cell values after addition/change</div><div><b>obs_min/mean/max</b> = minimum, mean and maximum of the observed average change in cell values (average across repeats)</div><div><b>rho_min/mean/max</b> = minimum, mean and maximum correlation (Pearson's rho) between old and new priorities of cells</div><div><b>_S/_M/_L</b> = small, medium or large, respectively, ranged values in the added/changed layer (for cost and condition analysis only)</div><div><b>_sd</b> = standard deviation <br></div><div> </div><div><br></div><div><div>Updates to this data:</div>7 Nov 2018 - Added explanations and full reference to the published article.</div><div>7 Nov 2018 - Data tables with condition analysis replaced. Original tables incorrectly showed results of the cost analysis.</div>