Confronting species distribution model predictions with species functional traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Species distribution models are valuable tools in studies of biogeography, ecology, and climate change and have been used to inform conservation and ecosystem management. However, species distribution models typically incorporate only climatic variables and species presence data. Model development or validation rarely considers functional components of species traits or other types of biological data. We implemented a species distribution model (Maxent) to predict global climate habitat suitability for Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella). We then tested the relationship between the degree of climate habitat suitability predicted by Maxent and the individual growth rates of both wild (N = 17) and stocked (N = 51) Grass Carp populations using correlation analysis. The Grass Carp Maxent model accurately reflected the global occurrence data (AUC = 0.904). Observations of Grass Carp growth rate covered six continents and ranged from 0.19 to 20.1 g day(-1). Species distribution model predictions were correlated (r = 0.5, 95% CI (0.03, 0.79)) with observed growth rates for wild Grass Carp populations but were not correlated (r = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.5, 0.012)) with stocked populations. Further, a review of the literature indicates that the few studies for other species that have previously assessed the relationship between the degree of predicted climate habitat suitability and species functional traits have also discovered significant relationships. Thus, species distribution models may provide inferences beyond just where a species may occur, providing a useful tool to understand the linkage between species distributions and underlying biological mechanisms.
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 | 0.013 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".