Neophyte species richness at the landscape scale under urban sprawl and climate warming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Land use and climate are two major components of global environmental change but our understanding of their simultaneous and interactive effects upon biodiversity is still limited. Here, we investigated the relationship between the species richness of neophytes, i.e. non‐native vascular plants introduced after 1500 AD, and environmental covariates to draw implications for future dynamics under land‐use and climate change. Location Switzerland, Central Europe. Methods The distribution of vascular plants was derived from a systematic national grid of 1 km 2 quadrates ( n = 456; Swiss Biodiversity Monitoring programme) including 1761 species, 122 of which were neophytes. Generalized linear models (GLMs) were used to correlate neophyte species richness with environmental covariates. The impact of land‐use and climate change was thereafter evaluated by projections for the years 2020 and 2050 using scenarios of moderate and strong changes for climate warming (IPCC) and urban sprawl (NRP 54). Results Mean annual temperature and the amount of urban areas explained neophyte species richness best, with a high predictive power of the corresponding model (cross‐validated D 2 = 0.816). Climate warming had a stronger impact on the potential increase in the mean neophyte species richness (up to 191% increase by 2050) than ongoing urban sprawl (up to 10% increase) independently from variable interactions and model extrapolations to non‐analogue environments. Main conclusions In contrast to other vascular plants, the prediction of neophyte species richness at the landscape scale in Switzerland requires few variables only, and regions of highest species richness of the two groups do not coincide. The neophyte species richness is basically driven by climatic (temperature) conditions, and urban areas additionally modulate small‐scale differences upon this coarse‐scale pattern. According to the projections climate warming will contribute to the future increase in neophyte species richness much more than ongoing urbanization, but the gain in new neophyte species will be highest in urban regions.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".