MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389265389 · doi:10.1002/pan3.10567

European scenarios for future biological invasions

2023· article· en· W4389265389 on OpenAlexaff
Cristian Pérez‐Granados, Bernd Lenzner, Marina Golivets, Wolf‐Christian Saul, Jonathan M. Jeschke, Franz Essl, Garry Peterson, Lucas Rutting, Guillaume Latombe, Tim Adriaens, David C. Aldridge, Sven Bacher, Rubén Bernardo‐Madrid, François Díaz, Belinda Gallardo, Piero Genovesi, Pablo González‐Moreno, Ingolf Kühn, Petra Kutleša, Brian Leung, Chunlong Liu, Konrad Pagitz, Teresa Pastor, Aníbal Pauchard, Wolfgang Rabitsch, Peter Robertson, Helen E. Roy, Hanno Seebens, Wojciech Solarz, Uwe Starfinger, Rob Tanner, Montserrat Vilà, Núria Roura‐Pascual

Bibliographic record

VenuePeople and Nature · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónResearch Committee, Aristotle University of ThessalonikiSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Global changeScale (ratio)Environmental resource managementBiodiversityEuropean unionClimate changeEcosystem servicesTemporal scalesEcosystemGeographyEcologyEnvironmental scienceBusinessBiologyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Invasive alien species are one of the major threats to global biodiversity, ecosystem integrity, nature's contributions to people and human health. While scenarios about potential future developments have been available for other global change drivers for quite some time, we largely lack an understanding of how biological invasions might unfold in the future across spatial scales. Based on previous work on global invasion scenarios, we developed a workflow to downscale global scenarios to a regional and policy‐relevant context. We applied this workflow at the European scale to create four European scenarios of biological invasions until 2050 that consider different environmental, socio‐economic and socio‐cultural trajectories, namely the European Alien Species Narratives (Eur‐ASNs). We compared the Eur‐ASNs with their previously published global counterparts (Global‐ASNs), assessing changes in 26 scenario variables. This assessment showed a high consistency between global and European scenarios in the logic and assumptions of the scenario variables. However, several discrepancies in scenario variable trends were detected that could be attributed to scale differences. This suggests that the workflow is able to capture scale‐dependent differences across scenarios. We also compared the Global‐ and Eur‐ASNs with the widely used Global and European Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs), a set of scenarios developed in the context of climate change to capture different future socio‐economic trends. Our comparison showed considerable divergences in the scenario space occupied by the different scenarios, with overall larger differences between the ASNs and SSPs than across scales (global vs. European) within the scenario initiatives. Given the differences between the ASNs and SSPs, it seems that the SSPs do not adequately capture the scenario space relevant to understanding the complex future of biological invasions. This underlines the importance of developing independent but complementary scenarios focussed on biological invasions. The downscaling workflow we implemented and presented here provides a tool to develop such scenarios across different regions and contexts. This is a major step towards an improved understanding of all major drivers of global change, including biological invasions. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.213 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeople and NatureSame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207