On the efficiency of indicator species for broad-scale monitoring of bird diversity across climate conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple constraints (e.g., time, funding, expertise) can impede the broad-scale monitoring of human-induced loss of biodiversity. Non-random species co-occurrence provides an opportunity to estimate local species richness by tracking only a few species that are indicators of more global assemblages. Despite promising fine-scale studies, it remains unclear whether such indicator species remain effective over broad spatial extents. We assessed the value of indicator species to consistently predict species richness despite variation in short-term (5–9 years) climate conditions. Our study involves 22,041 point-count stations distributed over 1.75 M km2 of Canadian boreal forest, where 197,000 birds from 216 species were detected. Using null model analysis of species co-occurrence followed by regression analysis, we identified the minimum set of indicator species that can predict 70% of spatial variation in local bird richness in each of eight short-term climate regions. We found that indicators were non-random subsets of the species pool, as they were species whose presence explained a relatively high percentage of variations in species richness within the short-term climate region, and those sharing a relatively high number of significant pairwise associations. Although only 11 to 26 indicator species were needed to predict species richness at the regional scale, 57 of the 216 species pool (26%) were necessary to make predictions over the entire study area. This large number reflects regional variations in the best indicator species, and those that remained indicators in several regions were representative of different species assemblages. Our observations thus cast doubts on the use of indicator species as an effective and efficient tool for biodiversity monitoring under changing climate conditions. Broad-scale (spatial or temporal) use of indicators thus comes with the colossal challenge of having to determine under which new conditions a given set of indicators must be replaced by another, and by which one.
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 | 0.040 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".