Global drivers of population density in terrestrial vertebrates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Although the effects of life history traits on population density have been investigated widely, how spatial environmental variation influences population density for a large range of organisms and at a broad spatial scale is poorly known. Filling this knowledge gap is crucial for global species management and conservation planning and to understand the potential impact of environmental changes on multiple species. Location Global. Time period Present. Major taxa studied Terrestrial amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. Methods We collected population density estimates for a range of terrestrial vertebrates, including 364 estimates for amphibians, 850 for reptiles, 5,667 for birds and 7,651 for mammals. We contrasted the importance of life history traits and environmental predictors using mixed models and tested different hypotheses to explain the variation in population density for the four groups. We assessed the predictive accuracy of models through cross‐validation and mapped the partial response of vertebrate population density to environmental variables globally. Results Amphibians were more abundant in wet areas with high productivity levels, whereas reptiles showed relatively higher densities in arid areas with low productivity and stable temperatures. The density of birds and mammals was typically high in temperate wet areas with intermediate levels of productivity. The models showed good predictive abilities, with pseudo‐ R 2 ranging between 0.68 (birds) and 0.83 (reptiles). Main conclusions Traits determine most of the variation in population density across species, whereas environmental conditions explain the intraspecific variation across populations. Species traits, resource availability and climatic stability have a different influence on the population density of the four groups. These models can be used to predict the average species population density over large areas and be used to explore macroecological patterns and inform conservation analyses.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".