Comparing niche‐ and process‐based models to reduce prediction uncertainty in species range shifts under climate change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obtaining reliable predictions of species range shifts under climate change is a crucial challenge for ecologists and stakeholders. At the continental scale, niche-based models have been widely used in the last 10 years to predict the potential impacts of climate change on species distributions all over the world, although these models do not include any mechanistic relationships. In contrast, species-specific, process-based predictions remain scarce at the continental scale. This is regrettable because to secure relevant and accurate predictions it is always desirable to compare predictions derived from different kinds of models applied independently to the same set of species and using the same raw data. Here we compare predictions of range shifts under climate change scenarios for 2100 derived from niche-based models with those of a process-based model for 15 North American boreal and temperate tree species. A general pattern emerged from our comparisons: niche-based models tend to predict a stronger level of extinction and a greater proportion of colonization than the process-based model. This result likely arises because niche-based models do not take phenotypic plasticity and local adaptation into account. Nevertheless, as the two kinds of models rely on different assumptions, their complementarity is revealed by common findings. Both modeling approaches highlight a major potential limitation on species tracking their climatic niche because of migration constraints and identify similar zones where species extirpation is likely. Such convergent predictions from models built on very different principles provide a useful way to offset uncertainties at the continental scale. This study shows that the use in concert of both approaches with their own caveats and advantages is crucial to obtain more robust results and that comparisons among models are needed in the near future to gain accuracy regarding predictions of range shifts under climate change.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".