Benchmarking novel approaches for modelling species range dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing biodiversity loss due to climate change is one of the most vital challenges of the 21st century. To anticipate and mitigate biodiversity loss, models are needed that reliably project species' range dynamics and extinction risks. Recently, several new approaches to model range dynamics have been developed to supplement correlative species distribution models (SDMs), but applications clearly lag behind model development. Indeed, no comparative analysis has been performed to evaluate their performance. Here, we build on process-based, simulated data for benchmarking five range (dynamic) models of varying complexity including classical SDMs, SDMs coupled with simple dispersal or more complex population dynamic models (SDM hybrids), and a hierarchical Bayesian process-based dynamic range model (DRM). We specifically test the effects of demographic and community processes on model predictive performance. Under current climate, DRMs performed best, although only marginally. Under climate change, predictive performance varied considerably, with no clear winners. Yet, all range dynamic models improved predictions under climate change substantially compared to purely correlative SDMs, and the population dynamic models also predicted reasonable extinction risks for most scenarios. When benchmarking data were simulated with more complex demographic and community processes, simple SDM hybrids including only dispersal often proved most reliable. Finally, we found that structural decisions during model building can have great impact on model accuracy, but prior system knowledge on important processes can reduce these uncertainties considerably. Our results reassure the clear merit in using dynamic approaches for modelling species' response to climate change but also emphasize several needs for further model and data improvement. We propose and discuss perspectives for improving range projections through combination of multiple models and for making these approaches operational for large numbers of species.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".