Data gaps in anthropogenically driven local‐scale species richness change studies across the Earth's terrestrial biomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There have been numerous attempts to synthesize the results of local-scale biodiversity change studies, yet several geographic data gaps exist. These data gaps have hindered ecologist's ability to make strong conclusions about how local-scale species richness is changing around the globe. Research on four of the major drivers of global change is unevenly distributed across the Earth's biomes. Here, we use a dataset of 638 anthropogenically driven species richness change studies to identify where data gaps exist across the Earth's terrestrial biomes based on land area, future change in drivers, and the impact of drivers on biodiversity, and make recommendations for where future studies should focus their efforts. Across all drivers of change, the temperate broadleaf and mixed forests and the tropical moist broadleaf forests are the best studied. The biome-driver combinations we have identified as most critical in terms of where local-scale species richness change studies are lacking include the following: land-use change studies in tropical and temperate coniferous forests, species invasion and nutrient addition studies in the boreal forest, and warming studies in the boreal forest and tropics. Gaining more information on the local-scale effects of the specific human drivers of change in these biomes will allow for better predictions of how human activity impacts species richness around the globe.
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 | 0.023 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".