Increasing spatial approximation complexity can degrade prediction quality in distribution models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Spatial and spatiotemporal models are increasingly critical for understanding species distributions, tracking population change, and informing conservation decisions. As biological processes are influenced by increasing external pressures, including human disturbance or environmental change, accurate model predictions become essential for adaptive management. However, the reliability of spatial predictions depends on often-overlooked modelling choices, including the spatial resolution used to approximate underlying processes. Using long term monitoring data from a large-scale groundfish survey in the California Current ecosystem, we investigated how spatial model complexity affects the quality of ecological predictions and derived indices used for management. We fit spatial and spatiotemporal models of ocean temperature and fish biomass density for 27 commercially important species using varying levels of spatial resolution. We evaluated both in-sample and out-of-sample prediction, and effects on area-weighted biomass indices. Counter to common assumptions, increasing spatial approximation resolution did not universally improve predictions. Our case studies demonstrate that for many datasets, out-of-sample prediction quality peaked at intermediate spatial resolutions and declined at the finest scales. Through simulation testing, we found this pattern was strongest when spatial patterning had a small range and high spatial variance, and observation error was low. For most species, spatial resolution had a minimal effect on biomass trend estimates used in management, but for several commercially important rockfish species, resolution choices substantially affected both the scale and uncertainty of population indices. Our findings demonstrate that spatial model specification can substantially affect ecological inference, with direct implications for management and conservation planning. We provide practical guidance for ecologists on selecting appropriate spatial complexity through cross-validation. When out-of-sample prediction is a focus, appropriate approximation complexity should improve both parameter estimation accuracy and derived quantities.
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 | 0.045 | 0.208 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".