Improving estimates of species distribution change by incorporating local trends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A common goal in ecology and its applications is to better understand how species' distributions change over space and time, yet many conventional summary metrics (e.g. center of gravity) of distribution shifts may offer limited inference because such changes may not be spatially homogenous. We develop a modeling approach to estimate a spatially explicit temporal trend (i.e. local trend), alongside spatial (temporally constant) and spatiotemporal (time‐varying) components, to compare inferred spatial shifts to those indicated by conventional metrics. This method is generalizable to many data types including presence–absence data, count data and continuous data types such as density. To demonstrate the utility of this new approach, we focus on the application of this model to a community of well‐studied marine fish species on the US west coast (19 species, representing a wide range of presence–absence and densities). Results from conventional model selection indicate that the use of the model accounting for local trends is clearly justified for over 89% of these species. In addition to making more parsimonious and accurate predictions, we illustrate how estimated spatial fields from the local trend model can be used to classify regions within the species range where change is relatively homogenous. Conventional summary metrics, such as center of gravity, can then be calculated on each such region or within previously defined biogeographic boundaries. We use this approach to illustrate that change is more nuanced than what is expressed via global metrics. Using arrowtooth flounder Atheresthes stomias as an example, the observed southward shift over time in the center of gravity is not reflective of a uniform shift in densities but local trends of decreasing density in the northern region and rapidly increasing density at the southern edge of the species' range. Thus, estimating local trends with spatiotemporal models improves interpretation of species distribution 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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".