Integrating modelling of biodiversity composition and ecosystem function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is increasing reliance on ecological models to improve our understanding of how ecological systems work, to project likely outcomes under alternative global change scenarios and to help develop robust management strategies. Two common types of spatiotemporally explicit ecological models are those focussed on biodiversity composition and those focussed on ecosystem function. These modelling disciplines are largely practiced separately, with separate literature, despite growing evidence that natural systems are shaped by the interaction of composition and function. Here we call for the development of new modelling approaches that integrate composition and function, accounting for the important interactions between these two dimensions, particularly under rapid global change. We examine existing modelling approaches that have begun to combine elements of composition and function, identifying their potential contribution to fully integrated modelling approaches. The development and application of integrated models of composition and function face a number of important challenges, including biological data limitations, system knowledge and computational constraints. We suggest a range of promising avenues that could help researchers overcome these challenges, including the use of virtual species, macroecological relationships and hybrid correlative‐mechanistic modelling. Explicitly accounting for the interactions between composition and function within integrated modelling approaches has the potential to improve our understanding of ecological systems, provide more accurate predictions of their future states and transform their management. Synthesis There is increasing attention from researchers and policy makers around the world on both assessing and projecting the state of the planet's biodiversity, its ecosystems and the essential services they provide to society. However, existing modelling approaches largely ignore the interactions between biodiversity composition and ecosystem function. We highlight the key challenges and potential solutions to developing integrated models of composition and function. Such models will require a new effort and focus from ecologists, yet the benefits are likely to be substantial, including better informing the management of natural systems at regional, national and international scales.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".