Predicting the future of species diversity: macroecological theory, climate change, and direct tests of alternative forecasting methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate predictions of future shifts in species diversity in response to global change are critical if useful conservation strategies are to be developed. The most widely used prediction method is to model individual species niches from point observations and project these models forward using future climate scenarios. The resulting changes in individual ranges are then summed to predict diversity changes; multiple models can be combined to produce ensemble forecasts. Predictions based on environment‐richness regressions are rarer. However, richness regression models, based on macroecological diversity theory, have a long track record of making reliable spatial predictions of diversity patterns. If these empirical theories capture true functional relationships between environment and diversity, then they should make consistent predictions through time as well as space and could complement individual species‐based predictions. Here, we use climate change throughout the 20th century to directly test the ability of these different approaches to predict shifts of Canadian butterfly diversity. We found that all approaches performed reasonably well, but the most accurate predictions were made using the single best richness‐environment regression model, after accounting for the effects of spatial autocorrelation. Spatially trained regression models based on macroecological theory accurately predict diversity shifts for large species assemblages. Global changes provide pseudo‐experimental tests of those macroecological theories that can then generate robust predictions of future conditions.
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 | 0.011 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".