Genetic data improves niche model discrimination and alters the direction and magnitude of climate change forecasts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ecological niche models (ENMs) have classically operated under the simplifying assumptions that there are no barriers to gene flow, species are genetically homogeneous (i.e., no population-specific local adaptation), and all individuals share the same niche. Yet, these assumptions are violated for most broadly distributed species. Here, we incorporate genetic data from the widespread riparian tree species narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia) to examine whether including intraspecific genetic variation can alter model performance and predictions of climate change impacts. We found that (1) P. angustifolia is differentiated into six genetic groups across its range from México to Canada and (2) different populations occupy distinct climate niches representing unique ecotypes. Comparing model discriminatory power, (3) all genetically informed ecological niche models (gENMs) outperformed the standard species-level ENM (3-14% increase in AUC; 1-23% increase in pROC). Furthermore, (4) gENMs predicted large differences among ecotypes in both the direction and magnitude of responses to climate change and (5) revealed evidence of niche divergence, particularly for the Eastern Rocky Mountain ecotype. (6) Models also predicted progressively increasing fragmentation and decreasing overlap between ecotypes. Contact zones are often hotspots of diversity that are critical for supporting species' capacity to respond to present and future climate change, thus predicted reductions in connectivity among ecotypes is of conservation concern. We further examined the generality of our findings by comparing our model developed for a higher elevation Rocky Mountain species with a related desert riparian cottonwood, P. fremontii. Together our results suggest that incorporating intraspecific genetic information can improve model performance by addressing this important source of variance. gENMs bring an evolutionary perspective to niche modeling and provide a truly "adaptive management" approach to support conservation genetic management of species facing global change.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".