ArticleGlobal change biology2025
Mixed Evidence for Species Diversity Affecting Ecological Forecasts in Constant Versus Declining Light.
Article in Global change biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Mixed Evidence for Species Diversity Affecting Ecological Forecasts in Constant Versus Declining Light.Global change biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate forecasts of ecological dynamics are critical for ecosystem management and conservation, yet the drivers of forecastability are poorly understood. Environmental change and diversity are considered major challenges to ecological forecasting. This assumption, however, has never been tested experimentally because forecasts have high data requirements. In a long-term microcosm experiment, we manipulated the species richness of 30 experimental protist communities and exposed them to constant or gradually decreasing light levels. We collected finely resolved time series (123 sampling dates over 41 weeks) of species abundances, community biomass, and oxygen concentrations. We then employed data-driven forecasting methods to forecast these variables. We found that species richness and light had a weak interactive effect on forecasts of species abundances: richness tended to reduce forecast accuracy in constant light but tended to increase forecast accuracy in declining light. These effects could partially be explained by differences among time series in variability and autocorrelation. Forecasts of aggregate properties (community biomass, oxygen), however, were unaffected by richness and light and were not more accurate than those of species abundances. Our forecasts were based on time series that were detrended and standardized. Since real-world forecasting applications require predictions at the original scale of the forecasted variable, it is important to note that the results were qualitatively identical when back-transforming the forecasts to the original scale. Taken together, we found no strong evidence that higher diversity results in lower forecastability. Rather, our results imply that promoting diversity could make populations more predictable when environmental conditions change. From a conservation and management perspective, our findings suggest preliminary support that diversity conservation might have beneficial effects on decision-taking by increasing the forecastability of species abundances in changing environments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.