Combining phylogeny and co‐occurrence to improve single species distribution models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim We present a novel quantitative framework that combines information on phylogeny and the spatial distributions of related species to enhance the single‐species distributional models commonly used in ecology. Innovation While species distribution models (SDMs) are becoming increasingly sophisticated, they rarely take into consideration the shared evolutionary histories of species. Species are not independent entities, and phylogenies may capture how species have configured their spatial distributions as a response to their ecological similarities and interactions in space and through evolutionary time. Our framework provides a flexible approach to include phylogenies as a surrogate for missing trait data within SDMs, and may be particularly valuable for disentangling current and historical drivers of species distributions and modelling data‐poor species when their close relatives are better sampled. Main conclusions Using both simulations and empirical examples, we demonstrate how the inclusion of phylogenetic information can significantly improve the fit of species distribution models by up to 30% for certain species. We show that the potential of phylogenies to improve model fit directly relates to the phylogenetic structure of species distributions and suggest that our framework has the potential to reconcile the apparent conflict between current and historical drivers of biodiversity patterns.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".