Towards understanding predictability in ecology: A forest gap model case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Underestimation of uncertainty in ecology runs the risk of producing precise, but inaccurate predictions. Most predictions from ecological models account for only a subset of the various components of uncertainty, making it diffcult to determine which uncertainties drive inaccurate predictions. To address this issue, we leveraged the forecast-analysis cycle and created a new state data assimilation algorithm that accommodates non-normal datasets and incorporates a commonly left-out uncertainty, process error covariance. We evaluated this novel algorithm with a case study where we assimilated 50 years of tree-ring-estimated aboveground biomass data into a forest gap model. To test assumptions about which uncertainties dominate forecasts of forest community and carbon dynamics, we partitioned hindcast variance into five uncertainty components. Contrary to the assumption that demographic stochasticity dominates forest gap dynamics, we found that demographic stochasticity alone massively underestimated forecast uncertainty (0.09% of the total uncertainty) and resulted in overconfident, biased model predictions. Similarly, despite decades of reliance on unconstrained “spin-ups” to initialize models, initial condition uncertainty declined very little over the forecast period and constraining initial conditions with data led to large increases in prediction accuracy. Process uncertainty, which up until now had been diffcult to estimate in mechanistic ecosystem model projections, dominated the prediction uncertainty over the forecast time period (49.1%), followed by meteorological uncertainty (32.5%). Parameter uncertainty, a recent focus of the modeling community, contributed 18.3%. These findings call into question our conventional wisdom about how to improve forest community and carbon cycle projections. This foundation can be used to test long standing modeling assumptions across fields in global change biology and specifically challenges the conventional wisdom regarding which aspects dominate uncertainty in the forest gap models.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".