Inference of biogeographic history by formally integrating distinct lines of evidence: genetic, environmental niche and fossil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A primary focus of historical biogeography is to understand changes in species ranges, abundance and genetic connectivity, and changes in community composition. Traditionally, biogeographic inference has relied on distinct lines of evidence, including DNA sequences, fossils and hindcasted ecological niche models. In this review we propose that the development of integrative modeling approaches that leverage multiple distinct data types from diverse disciplines has the potential to revolutionize the field of biogeography. Although each data type contains information on a distinct aspect of species’ biogeographic histories, few studies formally integrate multiple types in analysis. For example, post hoc congruence among analyses based on different data types (e.g. fossils and genetics) is commonly assumed to indicate likely biogeographic histories. Unfortunately, analyses of different data often reach discordant conclusions. Thus, fundamental and unresolved debates continue regarding speed and timing of postglacial migration, location and size of glacial refugia, and degree of long distance dispersal. Formal statistical integration can help address these issues. More specifically, formal integration can leverage all available evidence, account for inherent biases associated with different data types, and quantify data and process uncertainty. Novel, quantitative integration of data and models across fields is now possible due to recent advances in cyberinfrastructure, spatial modeling, online and aggregated ecological databases, data processing and quantitative methods. Our purpose is to make the case for and give examples of rigorous integration of genetic, fossil and environmental/occurrence data for inferring biogeographic history. In particular, we 1) review the need for such a framework; 2) explain common data types and approaches used to infer biogeographic history (and the challenges with each); 3) review state‐of‐the‐art examples of data integration in biogeography; 4) lay out a series of novel, suggested improvements on current methods; and 5) provide an outlook on technical feasibility and future opportunities.
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 | 0.047 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; 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".