Predicting and prioritizing species coexistence: learning outcomes via experiments
Blonder, B. W.; Godoy, O.
Show abstract
Community assembly provides the foundation for applications in biodiversity conservation, climate change, invasion ecology, restoration ecology, and synthetic ecology. Predicting and prioritizing community assembly outcomes remains challenging. We address this challenge via a mechanism-free LOVE (Learning Outcomes Via Experiments) approach suitable for cases where little data or knowledge exist: we carry out actions (randomly-sampled combinations of species additions), measure abundance outcomes, and then train a model to predict arbitrary outcomes of actions, or prioritize actions that would yield the most desirable outcomes. When trained on <100 randomly-selected actions, LOVE predicts outcomes with 2-5% error across datasets, and prioritizes actions for maximizing richness, maximizing abundance, or minimizing abundances of unwanted species, with 94-99% true positive rate and 12-83% true negative rate across tasks. LOVE complements existing approaches for community ecology by providing a foundation for additional mechanism-first study, and may help address numerous ecological applications.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Empirical abundance distributions are more uneven than expected given their statistical baseline 96%
- Predictions of biodiversity are improved by integrating trait-based competition with abiotic filtering 95%
- Time is of the essence: A general framework for uncovering temporal structures of communities 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Disentangling spatial and environmental effects: flexible methods for community ecology and macroecology 95%
- The dependence of forecasts on sampling frequency as a guide to optimizing monitoring in community ecology 94%
- Choosing priors in Bayesian ecological models by simulating from the prior predictive distribution 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.