Assessing effects of genetic, environmental, and biotic gradients in species distribution modelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To develop more reliable marine species distribution models (SDMs), we examine how genetic, climatic, and biotic interaction gradients give rise to prediction error in marine SDM. Genetic lineages with distinct ecological requirements spanning genetic gradients have yet to be treated separately in marine SDM, which are often constrained to modeling the potential distribution of one biological unit (e.g. lineage or species) at a time. By comparing SDM performance for the whole species or where observation and predictions were partitioned among geographically discontinuous genetic lineages, we first identified the appropriate biological unit for modeling sea scallop. Prediction errors, in particular contiguous omissions at the northern range margins were effectively halved in genetic lineage SDM (Total error=15%) verses whole species SDM. Remaining SDM prediction error was strongly associated with: i) Sharp climatic gradients (abrupt and persistent spatial shifts in limiting temperatures) found within continental shelf breaks and bottom channels. ii) A biotic gradient in the predation of sea scallop juveniles by the sand star within the Hudson Shelf USA. Our findings highlight how the accuracy of marine SDM is dependent on capturing the appropriate biological unit for modeling (e.g. lineages rather than species) and adequately resolving limiting abiotic and biotic interaction gradients.
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 | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".