Forecasting the future of biodiversity: a test of single‐ and multi‐species models for ants in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The geographic distributions of many taxonomic groups remain mostly unknown, hindering attempts to investigate the response of the majority of species on Earth to climate change using species distributions models (SDMs). Multi‐species models can incorporate data for rare or poorly‐sampled species, but their application to forecasting climate change impacts on biodiversity has been limited. Here we compare forecasts of changes in patterns of ant biodiversity in North America derived from ensembles of single‐species models to those from a multi‐species modeling approach, Generalized Dissimilarity Modeling (GDM). We found that both single‐ and multi‐species models forecasted large changes in ant community composition in relatively warm environments. GDM predicted higher turnover than SDMs and across a larger contiguous area, including the southern third of North America and notably Central America, where the proportion of ants with relatively small ranges is high and where data limitations are most likely to impede the application of SDMs. Differences between approaches were also influenced by assumptions regarding dispersal, with forecasts being more similar if no‐dispersal was assumed. When full‐dispersal was assumed, SDMs predicted higher turnover in southern Canada than did GDM. Taken together, our results suggest that 1) warm rather than cold regions potentially could experience the greatest changes in ant fauna under climate change and that 2) multi‐species models may represent an important complement to SDMs, particularly in analyses involving large numbers of rare or poorly‐sampled species. Comparisons of the ability of single‐ and multi‐species models to predict observed changes in community composition are needed in order to draw definitive conclusions regarding their application to investigating climate change impacts on biodiversity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".