Incorporating effects of habitat patches into species distribution models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Species distribution models (SDMs) are algorithms designed to infer the distribution of species using environmental and biotic variables and have become an important tool for ecologists and conservation biologists seeking to understand the implications of environmental change. Global datasets of environmental variables at resolutions of a few metres are increasingly available. SDMs fitted using such high‐resolution data allow researchers to investigate how local factors affect species occurrences at unprecedented fine spatial scales. As the spatial resolution of SDMs increases, we see a critical need to consider the characteristics of habitat types within or around raster pixels. In particular, we argue that the effects of habitat patches (EHPs, including habitat area, habitat configuration, and habitat diversity), measured focusing on patches or landscapes, have yet to be fully realized in SDMs. We provide guidelines to incorporate EHPs in SDMs. We explain why this development is important, describe approaches to properly conduct such analyses, and discuss pitfalls we foresee in testing EHPs. Synthesis . Ensuring that SDMs incorporating EHPs are properly designed will be key to increasing model predictive performance and to understanding which environmental factors influence the distribution of species at fine spatial scales. At a crucial time for nature conservation, we foresee that this will be a key step forward to understanding and protecting biodiversity.
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) | 0.002 | 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".