A Framework to Optimize Biodiversity Restoration Efforts Based on Habitat Amount and Landscape Connectivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effectiveness of ecological restoration actions toward biodiversity conservation depends on both local and landscape constraints. Extensive information on local constraints is already available, but few studies consider the landscape context when planning restoration actions. We propose a multiscale framework based on the landscape attributes of habitat amount and connectivity to infer landscape resilience and to set priority areas for restoration. Landscapes with intermediate habitat amount and where connectivity remains sufficiently high to favor recolonization were considered to be intermediately resilient, with high possibilities of restoration effectiveness and thus were designated as priority areas for restoration actions. The proposed method consists of three steps: (1) quantifying habitat amount and connectivity; (2) using landscape ecology theory to identify intermediate resilience landscapes based on habitat amount, percolation theory, and landscape connectivity; and (3) ranking landscapes according to their importance as corridors or bottlenecks for biological flows on a broader scale, based on a graph theory approach. We present a case study for the Brazilian Atlantic Forest (approximately 150 million hectares) in order to demonstrate the proposed method. For the Atlantic Forest, landscapes that present high restoration effectiveness represent only 10% of the region, but contain approximately 15 million hectares that could be targeted for restoration actions (an area similar to today's remaining forest extent). The proposed method represents a practical way to both plan restoration actions and optimize biodiversity conservation efforts by focusing on landscapes that would result in greater conservation benefits .
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".