Estimating plant abundance using inflated beta distributions: Applied learnings from a lichen–caribou ecosystem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Quantifying abundance and distribution of plant species can be difficult because data are often inflated with zero values due to rarity or absence from many ecosystems. Terrestrial fruticose lichens (Cladonia and Cetraria spp.) occupy a narrow ecological niche and have been linked to the diets of declining caribou and reindeer populations (Rangifer tarandus) across their global distribution, and conditions related to their abundance and distribution are not well understood. We attempted to measure effects related to the occupancy and abundance of terrestrial fruticose lichens by sampling and simultaneously modeling two discrete conditions: absence and abundance. We sampled the proportion cover of terrestrial lichens at 438 vegetation plots, including 98 plots having zero lichens. A zero‐inflated beta regression model was employed to simultaneously estimate both the absence and the proportion cover of terrestrial fruticose lichens using fine resolution satellite imagery and light detection and ranging (LiDAR) derived covariates. The probability of lichen absence significantly increased with shallower groundwater, taller vegetation, and increased Sphagnum moss cover. Vegetation productivity, Sphagnum moss cover, and seasonal changes in photosynthetic capacity were negatively related to the abundances of terrestrial lichens. Inflated beta regression reliably estimated the abundance of terrestrial lichens (R2 = .74) which was interpolated on a map at fine resolution across a caribou range to support ecological conservation and reclamation. Results demonstrate that sampling for and simultaneously estimating both occupancy and abundance offer a powerful approach to improve statistical estimation and expand ecological inference in an applied setting. Learnings are broadly applicable to studying species that are rare, occupy narrow niches, or where the response variable is a proportion value containing zero or one, which is typical of vegetation cover data.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".