MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304187695 · doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsac179

Incorporating non-stationary spatial variability into dynamic species distribution models

2022· article· en· W4304187695 on OpenAlexaff
Eric J. Ward, Lewis A. K. Barnett, Sean C. Anderson, Christian J. C. Commander, Timothy E. Essington

Bibliographic record

VenueICES Journal of Marine Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsGroundfishPopulationClimate changeSpatial variabilitySpatial distributionVariance (accounting)Environmental scienceGeographyEcologyFisheries managementBiologyFishingStatisticsMathematicsRemote sensing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Ecologists and fisheries scientists are faced with forecasting the ecological responses of non-stationary processes resulting from climate change and other drivers. While much is known about temporal change, and resulting responses vis-à-vis species distributional shifts, less is known about how spatial variability in population structure changes through time in response to temporal trends in drivers. A population experiencing decreasing spatial variability would be expected to be more evenly spatially distributed over time, and an increasing trend would correspond to greater extremes or patchiness. We implement a new approach for modelling this spatiotemporal variability in the R package sdmTMB. As a real-world application, we focus on a long-term groundfish monitoring dataset, from the west coast of the USA. Focusing on the 36 species with the highest population densities, we compare our model with dynamic spatiotemporal variance to a model with constant spatiotemporal variance. Of the 36 species examined, 13 had evidence to support increasing patchiness, including darkblotched rockfish, lingcod, and petrale sole. Species appearing to be more uniformly spatially distributed over time included: Dover sole, Pacific ocean perch, and Dungeness crab. Letting spatiotemporal variation change through time generally results in small differences in population trend estimates, but larger estimated differences in precision.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueICES Journal of Marine ScienceSame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207