Integrating genomic data and simulations to evaluate alternative species distribution models and improve predictions of glacial refugia and future responses to climate change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate change poses a threat to biodiversity, and it is unclear whether species can adapt to or tolerate new conditions, or migrate to areas with suitable habitats. Reconstructions of range shifts that occurred in response to environmental changes since the last glacial maximum (LGM) from species distribution models (SDMs) can provide useful data to inform conservation efforts. However, different SDM algorithms and climate reconstructions often produce contrasting patterns, and validation methods typically focus on accuracy in recreating current distributions, limiting their relevance for assessing predictions to the past or future. We modeled historically suitable habitat for the threatened North American tree green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica using 24 SDMs built using two climate models, three calibration regions, and four modeling algorithms. We evaluated the SDMs using contemporary data with spatial block cross‐validation and compared the relative support for alternative models using a novel integrative method based on coupled demographic‐genetic simulations. We simulated genomic datasets using habitat suitability of each of the 24 SDMs in a spatially‐explicit model. Approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) was then used to evaluate the support for alternative SDMs through comparisons to an empirical population genomic dataset. Models had very similar performance when assessed with contemporary occurrences using spatial cross‐validation, but ABC model selection analyses consistently supported SDMs based on the CCSM climate model, an intermediate calibration extent, and the generalized linear modeling algorithm. Finally, we projected the future range of green ash under four climate change scenarios. Future projections using the SDMs selected via ABC suggest only minor shifts in suitable habitat for this species, while some of those that were rejected predicted dramatic changes. Our results highlight the different inferences that may result from the application of alternative distribution modeling algorithms and provide a novel approach for selecting among a set of competing SDMs with independent data.
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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".