{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020016012810248198, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.313131313131313, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
How to compare different conceptual approaches to metapopulation modelling

Models are essential tools in understanding population dynamics and deriving management measures in the context of population viability analysis. However, very often the question arises which type of model architecture is appropriate for a given situation. Mostly this situation is characterized by a shortage of data for model parameterization. In this study, an approach is presented to overcome this lack of real-world data by using the output of long-term simulation runs of specific individual-based models. Thus, it is possible to evaluate the quality of macroscopic model predictions. Furthermore, this setting allows to compare totally different types of metapopulation models. As an exemplary case study, this approach is applied to generic grasshopper species in highly fragmented habitat landscapes, assessing on the one hand the well-known incidence function model and on the other hand a grid-based approach. The results show that predictions of both models have substantial biases. Nonetheless, recommendations can be derived how to obtain more accurate model estimates. Finally, the patch-matrix model proves to be more adequate than the grid-based approach.