Contrasting responses of generalized/specialized mistletoe-host interactions under climate change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considering that parasitic plant distributions are constrained by host availability, we measure the effects of adding information of host distributions to predict distributions of mistletoes under climate change using ecological niche modeling (ENM). We contrasted ecological niche models of two Psittacanthus mistletoe species, P. schiedeanus, a host-generalist species inhabiting cloud forests, and P. sonorae, a Bursera-specialist restricted to the Sonoran Desert. Mistletoe models that use only climate variables were contrasted with models that also take into account biotic interactions (i.e., host) to evaluate the potential effects that future climatic conditions have on the distributions of these mistletoe-host interactions. Current potential distributions of both mistletoe species were affected by environmental conditions under future climate change scenarios. However, future projected distributions differed between mistletoe species when including host interactions, with improved accuracy models for P. schiedeanus. Our results are consistent with previous studies showing that biotic interactions can be important in structuring species distributions at regional scales.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".