The Relationship of Plant Diversity to Alberta's Range Health Assessment
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Grassland conversion to other land uses is the leading cause of decline in biodiversity in these ecosystems. In remaining grasslands, grazing can have positive or negative effects on biodiversity, and the ability to assess grazing effects is critical to apply informed conservation management decisions. One way to measure grazing impacts is with rangeland health, an operational measure of grassland function. Rangeland health is assessed by summing the scores of individual components of community integrity, structure, hydrological function and nutrient cycling, site stability and noxious weed presence. It is often assumed that if rangeland health is maintained then biodiversity is conserved; however, this has not been broadly tested. This study investigated relationships of plant diversity measures with Alberta’s Rangeland Health Assessment at two different scales. In the first study, rangeland health was measured at discreet locations across a broad geographic area and plant diversity did not relate to rangeland health. However, components measuring soil erosion, nutrient cycling / hydrological function, structure and noxious weeds all related to diversity metrics, although the relationships were influenced by environmental factors such as topographical and geographical moisture gradients. In the second study, rangeland health was measured in plant communities throughout a pasture and related to community patchiness. The patchiness measure was created by comparing the number of ecosites present to the number of plant communities occurring with the addition of grazing effects. Average health scores and their range (max-min) both related to patchiness within pastures. Furthermore, the relationship between patchiness and rangeland health was influenced by abiotic differences as well as a broad climatic gradient. Implications for grassland conservation and management are that although no direct relationship was found between plant diversity and total rangeland health score at the community level, diversity nevertheless demonstrated a sensitivity to several subcomponents of the health assessment, and therefore may provide utility in tracking ongoing diversity changes. Also, if completed in multiple locations within a pasture, rangeland health can be utilized to indicate community patchiness, which has been shown to be important to biodiversity and a variety of wildlife species. Management goals should be specified between diversity and rangeland health as there may be instances where some areas of lower levels of health can promote patchiness and overall diversity.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».