Assessing the reliability of predicted plant trait distributions at the global scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Predictions of plant traits over space and time are increasingly used to improve our understanding of plant community responses to global environmental change. A necessary step forward is to assess the reliability of global trait predictions. In this study, we predict community mean plant traits at the global scale and present a systematic evaluation of their reliability in terms of the accuracy of the models, ecological realism and various sources of uncertainty. LOCATION: Global. TIME PERIOD: Present. MAJOR TAXA STUDIED: Vascular plants. METHODS: We predicted global distributions of community mean specific leaf area, leaf nitrogen concentration, plant height and wood density with an ensemble modelling approach based on georeferenced, locally measured trait data representative of the plant community. We assessed the predictive performance of the models, the plausibility of predicted trait combinations, the influence of data quality, and the uncertainty across geographical space attributed to spatial extrapolation and diverging model predictions. RESULTS: Ensemble predictions of community mean plant height, specific leaf area and wood density resulted in ecologically plausible trait-environment relationships and trait-trait combinations. Leaf nitrogen concentration, however, could not be predicted reliably. The ensemble approach was better at predicting community trait means than any of the individual modelling techniques, which varied greatly in predictive performance and led to divergent predictions, mostly in African deserts and the Arctic, where predictions were also extrapolated. High data quality (i.e., including intraspecific variability and a representative species sample) increased model performance by 28%. MAIN CONCLUSIONS: Plant community traits can be predicted reliably at the global scale when using an ensemble approach and high-quality data for traits that mostly respond to large-scale environmental factors. We recommend applying ensemble forecasting to account for model uncertainty, using representative trait data, and more routinely assessing the reliability of trait predictions.
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 | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".