Dynamic macroecology on ecological time‐scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Aim The discipline of macroecology is increasingly being regarded as an effective vehicle for the evaluation of recent population‐ to ecosystem‐level responses to widespread human and environmental influences. However, due to the prevalent use of time‐averaged and cumulative data in macroecological analyses, the majority of the patterns that emerge from research in this field can be regarded as static. Here we review the application of dynamic macroecological analyses to changes in relationships between macroecological variables on seasonal to decadal scales. We illustrate the strength of this perspective for documenting changing patterns and testing hypotheses related to these dynamics on ecological time‐scales. Location Studies were compiled and reviewed from terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Methods We review examples of temporal changes in macroecological patterns driven by recent anthropogenic influences and environmental change. Results The dynamic nature of macroecological patterns on ecological time‐scales has been revealed in recent years across a wide range of ecosystems, largely through the development, maintenance and analysis of biotic and environmental monitoring time series. The resultant analyses complement examinations of dynamics over evolutionary time and have similarly revealed that static portrayals can conceal important temporal dynamics that underlie the patterns of interest. As a consequence, static depictions, resting as they do on comparative analyses in which the validity of space‐for‐time substitutions is assumed, may be of limited use for testing hypotheses related to the mechanisms underlying the patterns revealed and, by extension, the development of reliable predictions of future states. Main conclusions Recent dynamic macroecological analyses have demonstrated the utility of combined spatial and temporal replication, and have contributed to hypothesis testing related to the mechanistic processes underlying changes in macroecological patterns on ecological time‐scales. We suggest four specific avenues of future research to further the development and application of temporal approaches on similar time‐scales within the field of macroecology.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".