Estimating Invasion Dynamics with Geopolitical Unit-Level Records: The Optimal Method Depends on Irregularity and Stochasticity of Spread
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biological invasions are an ongoing threat for sustainability of ecosystems, and estimating the spread of invasive species is critical for making management decisions. Geopolitical unit-level data (GULD) are often used to estimate invasions due to their wide availability, and researchers had evaluated the abilities of multiple methods to estimate invasion with GULD. However, earlier studies were case based and only addressed limited information on the spread, thus making it inadequate to determine which method to choose to estimate invasions with GULD under various spread scenarios. Here, we conducted a simulation study to (1) evaluate performances of eight methods on estimating expansion patterns, spread rates, and spread dynamics of invasive species with GULD; (2) assess the impact of size and homogeneity of size of geopolitical unit on the estimations by studied methods; (3) evaluate the similarities of all studied methods. Additionally, we presented a concave hull boundary displacement method (Ctd_BD) and an area-based regression method (SqrtNA_R) to estimate spread with GULD. Three regions with varying sizes of counties in the United States (U.S.) were selected to conduct the simulations, and three spread scenarios and three expansion patterns were simulated. AIC, and R2 and root mean square error (RMSE) were used to evaluate the accuracy of methods on estimating expansion pattern, and overall spread rate and spread dynamics, respectively. Correlation coefficient and RMSE were used to assess the similarity of eight methods. We found Ctd_BD and area-based regression methods consistently estimated the right expansion patterns. Boundary displacement and area-based regression methods estimated highly correlated spread rates and dynamics. Distance-based regression methods provided a high accuracy on estimating overall spread rate without long-distance jump dispersal but performed poorly on estimating the spread dynamics. We recommend boundary displacement method, especially Ctd_BD, for estimating spread with GULD, whereas for spread without clear infestation boundaries, distance-based regression can be used to estimate overall spread rate and area-based regression can be used to estimate spread dynamics.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".