MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2601358885 · doi:10.1111/geb.12579

Diversity and suitability of existing methods and metrics for quantifying species range shifts

2017· article· en· W2601358885 on OpenAlexafffund
Semra Yalcin, Shawn Leroux

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Ecology and Biogeography · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaResearch and Development Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador
KeywordsRange (aeronautics)Species distributionEcologySpecies richnessTaxonBiodiversityGlobal biodiversityBiologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aim The quantification of species range shifts is critical for developing effective plans to conserve biodiversity. There are numerous methods and metrics for quantifying species range shifts, but we currently lack a comprehensive review of existing approaches used in species range shift studies. Location Global. Time period 2013 – 2014. Major taxa studied All taxa. Methods We conducted a quantitative literature review to first identify the methods currently used for defining a species' range over a particular time and then to identify metrics used for measuring changes in species ranges over time. We provide a roadmap for the selection of methods and metrics for measuring species ranges and species range shifts by discussing opportunities, assumptions and constraints of the different approaches. Results Our literature review revealed six main methods for defining species ranges: observational studies, grid‐based mapping, convex hull, kriging, species distribution modelling and hybrid methods. These methods are used with three main metric classes to measure species range shifts: changes in range limit, size and the probability of species occurrences or suitability. Most methods for defining species ranges and subsequent range shifts can be applied to different spatial extents and resolutions and taxa. However, only species distribution models (SDMs) and hybrid methods allow for the exploration of the relationship between species occurrence and environmental variables, and only these methods can be used for forecasting species ranges into future environments. Likewise, the inclusion of ecological processes in range shift calculations requires researchers to use hybrid methods or mechanistic models. Main conclusions Our review revealed a high diversity of methods and metrics used to quantify species range shifts. As these methods and metrics underlie many of the conservation strategies proposed for climate change mitigation (e.g., protection of refugia), we urge the conservation community to evaluate underlying approaches for defining species ranges and measuring species range shifts with an equal level of scrutiny as the conservation strategies that these methods and metrics enable.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.135
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations54
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Ecology and BiogeographySame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207