Predictor species: Improving assessments of rare species occurrence by modeling environmental co‐responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Designing an effective conservation strategy requires understanding where rare species are located. Because rare species can be difficult to find, ecologists often identify other species called conservation surrogates that can help inform the distribution of rare species. Species distribution models typically rely on environmental data when predicting the occurrence of species, neglecting the effect of species' co-occurrences and biotic interactions. Here, we present a new approach that uses Bayesian networks to improve predictions by modeling environmental co-responses among species. For species from a European peat bog community, our approach consistently performs better than single-species models and better than conventional multi-species approaches that include the presence of nontarget species as additional independent variables in regression models. Our approach performs particularly well with rare species and when calibration data are limited. Furthermore, we identify a group of "predictor species" that are relatively common, insensitive to the presence of other species, and can be used to improve occurrence predictions of rare species. Predictor species are distinct from other categories of conservation surrogates such as umbrella or indicator species, which motivates focused data collection of predictor species to enhance conservation practices.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".