Multiple habitat graphs: how connectivity brings forth landscape ecological processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Habitat connectivity is integral to current biodiversity science and conservation strategies. Originally, the connectivity concept stressed the role of individual movements for landscape-scale processes. Connectivity determines whether populations can survive in sub-optimal patches (i.e., source-sink effects), complete life cycles relying on different habitat types (i.e., landscape complementation), and benefit from supplementary resources distributed over the landscape (i.e., landscape supplementation). Although the past decades have witnessed major improvements in habitat connectivity modeling, most approaches have yet to consider the multiplicity of habitat types that a species can benefit from. Without doing so, connectivity analyses potentially fail to meet one of their fundamental purposes: revealing how complex individual movements lead to landscape-scale ecological processes. To bridge this conceptual and methodological gap, we propose to include multiple habitat types in spatial graph models of habitat connectivity, where nodes traditionally represent a single habitat type. Multiple habitat graphs will improve how we model connectivity and related landscape ecological processes, and how they are impacted by land cover changes. In three case studies, we use these graphs to model (i) source-sink effects, (ii) landscape supplementation, and (iii) complementation processes, in urban ecosystems, agricultural landscapes, and amphibian habitat networks, respectively. We show that multiple habitat graphs help addressing crucial conservation challenges (e.g., urban sprawl, biological control, climate change) by representing more accurately the dynamics of populations, communities, and their interactions. A new version of the Graphab open-source software implements the proposed approach, thereby extending the ecologist's toolbox and fostering the alignment between landscape ecology theory and practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".