Modelling the niche space of desert annuals needs to include positive interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The niche is a necessary consideration when estimating habitable area and geographic range of a species. Modellers often examine the fundamental niche and the environmental requirements for plant species, ignoring interactions among species. In deserts, positive plant interactions are important drivers of biodiversity and structure communities through many mechanistic pathways including modifying environmental conditions. Thus, we tested the hypothesis that desert shrubs increase the geographical extent of some annual species because, through modifying the microclimate, they match the niche requirements of beneficiary species. We used the database of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility to construct MaxEnt species distribution models (SDM) with and without reported benefactor species within the Mojave Desert in California. We chose 20 annual species to be modeled including 10 species that had been previously reported in the literature as being facilitated (beneficiary) and 10 that had no record of being facilitated (unreported). Beneficiary annuals co‐occurred significantly more with benefactor shrubs than the unreported annual species. The inclusion of shrubs into SDMs significantly improved model predictability and geographic range for all the beneficiary annual species, but not for the unreported annual species. Thus, positive interactions are species specific and it is possible to determine annual species dependency on benefactor shrubs at the regional scale. The co‐occurrence of benefactor shrubs and annual species can be used as a proxy for facilitation and recent developments in SDM techniques encourage the inclusion of biotic interactions. Species distribution models should include estimates of facilitation because biotic interactions determine the niche of species and can have implications with a changing climate.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".