Incorporating interspecific competition into species-distribution mapping by upward scaling of small-scale model projections to the landscape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are a number of overarching questions and debate in the scientific community concerning the importance of biotic interactions in species distribution models at large spatial scales. In this paper, we present a framework for revising the potential distribution of tree species native to the Western Ecoregion of Nova Scotia, Canada, by integrating the long-term effects of interspecific competition into an existing abiotic-factor-based definition of potential species distribution (PSD). The PSD model is developed by combining spatially explicit data of individualistic species' response to normalized incident photosynthetically active radiation, soil water content, and growing degree days. A revised PSD model adds biomass output simulated over a 100-year timeframe with a robust forest gap model and scaled up to the landscape using a forestland classification technique. To demonstrate the method, we applied the calculation to the natural range of 16 target tree species as found in 1,240 provincial forest-inventory plots. The revised PSD model, with the long-term effects of interspecific competition accounted for, predicted that eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), white birch (Betula papyrifera), red oak (Quercus rubra), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), and trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) would experience a significant decline in their original distribution compared with balsam fir (Abies balsamea), black spruce (Picea mariana), red spruce (Picea rubens), red maple (Acer rubrum L.), and yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis). True model accuracy improved from 64.2% with original PSD evaluations to 81.7% with revised PSD. Kappa statistics slightly increased from 0.26 (fair) to 0.41 (moderate) for original and revised PSDs, respectively.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".