Improved understanding and prediction of freshwater fish communities through the use of joint species distribution models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two primary goals in fisheries research are to (i) understand how habitat and environmental conditions influence the distribution of fishes across the landscape and (ii) make predictions about how fish communities will respond to environmental and anthropogenic change. In inland, freshwater ecosystems, quantitative approaches traditionally used to accomplish these goals largely ignore the effects of species interactions (competition, predation, mutualism) on shaping community structure, potentially leading to erroneous conclusions regarding habitat associations and unrealistic predictions about species distributions. Using two contrasting case studies, we highlight how joint species distribution models (JSDMs) can address the aforementioned deficiencies by simultaneously quantifying the effects of abiotic habitat variables and species dependencies. In particular, we show that conditional predictions of species occurrence from JSDMs can better predict species presence or absence compared with predictions that ignore species dependencies. JSDMs also allow for the estimation of site-specific probabilities of species co-occurrence, which can be informative for generating hypotheses about species interactions. JSDMs provide a flexible framework that can be used to address a variety of questions in fisheries science and management.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".