Forecasting species distributions: Correlation does not equal causation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Identifying the mechanisms influencing species' distributions is critical for accurate climate change forecasts. However, current approaches are limited by correlative models that cannot distinguish between direct and indirect effects. Location New Hampshire and Vermont, USA. Methods Using causal and correlational models and new theory on range limits, we compared current (2014–2019) and future (2080s) distributions of ecologically important mammalian carnivores and competitors along range limits in the northeastern US under two global climate models (GCMs) and a high‐emission scenario (RCP8.5) of projected snow and forest biomass change. Results Our hypothesis that causal models of climate‐mediated competition would result in different distribution predictions than correlational models, both in the current and future periods, was well‐supported by our results; however, these patterns were prominent only for species pairs that exhibited strong interactions. The causal model predicted the current distribution of Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) more accurately, likely because it incorporated the influence of competitive interactions mediated by snow with the closely related bobcat (Lynx rufus). Both modeling frameworks predicted an overall decline in lynx occurrence in the central high‐elevation regions and increased occurrence in the northeastern region in the 2080s due to changes in land use that provided optimal habitat. However, these losses and gains were less substantial in the causal model due to the inclusion of an indirect buffering effect of snow on lynx. Main conclusions Our comparative analysis indicates that a causal framework, steeped in ecological theory, can be used to generate spatially explicit predictions of species distributions. This approach can be used to disentangle correlated predictors that have previously hampered understanding of range limits and species' response to climate 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 | 0.007 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".