Testing the hierarchy of predictability in grassland restoration across a gradient of environmental severity
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Ecological restoration is critical for recovering degraded ecosystems but is challenged by variable success and low predictability. Understanding which outcomes are more predictable and less variable following restoration can improve restoration effectiveness. Recent theory asserts that the predictability of outcomes would follow an order from most to least predictable from coarse to fine community properties (physical structure > taxonomic diversity > functional composition > taxonomic composition) and that predictability would increase with more severe environmental conditions constraining species establishment. We tested this "hierarchy of predictability" hypothesis by synthesizing outcomes along an aridity gradient with 11 grassland restoration projects across the United States. We used 1829 vegetation monitoring plots from 227 restoration treatments, spread across 52 sites. We fit generalized linear mixed-effects models to predict six indicators of restoration outcomes as a function of restoration characteristics (i.e., seed mixes, disturbance, management actions, time since restoration) and used variance explained by models and model residuals as proxies for restoration predictability. We did not find consistent support for our hypotheses. Physical structure was among the most predictable outcomes when the response variable was relative abundance of grasses, but unpredictable for total canopy cover. Similarly, one dimension of taxonomic composition related to species identities was unpredictable, but another dimension of taxonomic composition indicating whether exotic or native species dominated the community was highly predictable. Taxonomic diversity (i.e., species richness) and functional composition (i.e., mean trait values) were intermittently predictable. Predictability also did not increase consistently with aridity. The dimension of taxonomic composition related to the identity of species in restored communities was more predictable (i.e., smaller residuals) in more arid sites, but functional composition was less predictable (i.e., larger residuals), and other outcomes showed no significant trend. Restoration outcomes were most predictable when they related to variation in dominant species, while those responding to rare species were harder to predict, indicating a potential role of scale in restoration predictability. Overall, our results highlight additional factors that might influence restoration predictability and add support to the importance of continuous monitoring and active management beyond one-time seed addition for successful grassland restoration in the United States.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».