MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3126716639 · doi:10.1111/ddi.13238

Can habitat suitability estimated from MaxEnt predict colonizations and extinctions?

2021· article· en· W3126716639 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiversity and Distributions · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOccupancyExtinction (optical mineralogy)HabitatEcologyClimate changeExtinction probabilityNeighbourhood (mathematics)Species distributionBiological dispersalLocal extinctionGeographyEnvironmental scienceBiologyPopulationPopulation sizeDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aim MaxEnt has been widely used to model species’ geographic distributions as functions of environmental variables and to predict changes in distributions in response to environmental change. Here, we test the predictive ability of MaxEnt models through time by modelling colonizations and extinctions. Location North America. Methods Using data for 21 species from the North American Breeding Bird Survey, we first related avian species’ geographic distributions to the spatial variation in environmental conditions. Then, we modelled site‐specific colonizations and extinctions between 1979 and 2009 as functions of MaxEnt‐estimated habitat suitability and neighbourhood occupancy. Results We found that colonization and extinction probabilities were related to spatial variation in habitat suitability, and to neighbourhood occupancy, in the expected directions. However, change in habitat suitability (which is much smaller through time than through space) is a weak predictor of extinction and worse for colonization. This is because a) for most species and most sites, climatic suitability did not change dramatically between 1979 and 2009, and b) the relationship between colonization or extinction probability and change in climatic variables is very weak ( r 2 = 0.02). Most colonizations and extinctions are apparently unrelated to climate change. Main conclusions MaxEnt models apparently capture a real effect of habitat suitability on North American bird species’ distributions, but over short and medium time scales, occupancy of neighbouring sites by conspecifics predicts changes in occupancy as well as, or better than changes in climatic habitat suitability, as characterized by MaxEnt. One would not expect species’ distributions to track climate change closely. Prediction of species’ responses to climate change should 1) recognize that the process of colonization and extinction are not equally well predicted by species distribution models and 2) account for the spatial structure of species’ distributions.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it