Quantifying pairwise relationships in biodiversity through time and space using long term data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the strength and predictability of changes in global biodiversity is critical for quantifying how taxa will respond to global change. By analyzing the relationships in population trends among taxa exposed to both biotic and abiotic pressures, we may be able to discern these patterns, potentially facilitating the formulation of predictive frameworks for their future shifts. However, the extent to which these pressures can describe changes in abundances over large spatial and temporal scales is vastly understudied. We use two global datasets containing abundance time-series (BioTIME) and biotic interactions (GloBI) to fit a series of hierarchical models testing whether the yearly change in abundance of any given genus is associated with the yearly change in abundance of another geographically proximal genus (i.e. genus pairs) within the same study. We then use posterior predictive modeling to assess the predictive accuracy for each genus pair from the modeled output. Finally, we test how associations and predictive accuracy are influenced by site latitude, GloBI interactions, disturbance, time-series length, and taxonomic classification to assess what ecological factors explain differences in associations and/or predictability. Generally, we find that abundance changes between genus pairs tend to be neutral to weakly positively associated over time and have good predictive accuracy as long as yearly changes in abundance are not exceedingly large (<=39%). Associations and predictive accuracy across genus pairs vary systematically across ecological factors and taxonomic identity, increasing with longer time-series, towards the equator, and in disturbed habitats. Our results show that global time-series data can illustrate meaningful, albeit variable, relationships between genera and that these patterns are shaped by known ecological factors. Overall, this suggests that by incorporating broad and accessible ecological information, we can improve forecast methods to mitigate biodiversity loss in an era of global 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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".