Three‐dimensional mid‐domain predictions: geometric constraints in North American amphibian, bird, mammal and tree species richness patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The “mid‐domain effect” (MDE) has received much attention as a candidate explanation for patterns in species richness over large geographic areas. Mid‐domain models generate a central peak in richness when species ranges are placed randomly within a bounded geographic area (i.e. the domain). Until now, domain limits have been described mostly in one‐dimension, usually latitude or elevation, and only occasionally in two‐dimensions. Here we test 1‐D, 2‐D and, for the first time, 3‐D mid‐domain models and assess the effects of geometric constraints on species richness in North American amphibian, bird, mammal and tree species. Using spatially lagged simultaneous autoregressive models, empirical richness was predicted quite well by the mid‐domain predictions and the spatial autoregressive term (45–92% R 2 ). However, our results show that empirical species richness peaks do deviate from those of the MDE predictions in 3 dimensions. Variation explained (R 2 ) by MDE predictions generally increased with increasing mean range size of the different biotic groups (from amphibian, to tree, mammal and finally bird data), and decreased with increasing dimensions being accounted for in the models. The results suggest geometric constraints alone can explain much of the variation in species richness with elevation, specifically with respect to the larger‐range taxa, birds and mammals. Our analysis addresses many of the recent methodological criticisms directed at studies testing the MDE, and our results support the hypothesis that species diversity patterns are influenced by geometric constraints.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".