MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

MINI‐REVIEW: Habitat analogues for reconciliation ecology in urban and industrial environments

2010· article· en· W1732723623 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Ecology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHabitatEcologyBiological dispersalEcosystemBiodiversityNatural (archaeology)Ecosystem engineerUrban ecosystemGeographyBiologyUrban planningPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary 1. Current views of anthropogenic environments emphasize the extreme novelty of urban and industrial ecosystems. Proponents of reconciliation ecology argue that we need to use such habitats to conserve biodiversity, given the inadequacy of natural reserve systems. 2. Some of the harshest anthropogenic ecosystems may be able to support indigenous biodiversity due to their structural or functional resemblance to natural ecosystems, habitats, or microsites that may be present in the region but not part of the historic ecosystem on a particular site. Here we review recent work that evaluates similarities between urban and industrial ecosystems and natural analogues, and explore the potential for these in reconciliation ecology. 3. We find that artificial habitats represent a gradient of ecological novelty which may be independent of the degree of human influence. While hard‐surfaced habitats such as walls and quarries are the most investigated artificial analogues (of natural rock pavements and cliffs), there are many other examples spanning a range of habitats in both terrestrial and marine settings. Analogous ecosystems may be present in the region but limits to dispersal can prevent appropriate species from reaching urban or industrial sites, and small differences in abiotic conditions can sometimes prevent colonization by native biota in otherwise similar artificial habitats. We suggest that a search for habitat analogues represents an important principle to guide reconciliation ecology in urban and industrial lands. In constrast, analogous ecosystems may also support pest species that exploit the similarities between anthropogenic habitats and their ancestral habitats. 4. Synthesis and applications. Identifying analogous habitats and ecosystems could enhance biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services in anthropogenic environments. Abiotic and biotic differences between artificial analogues and natural systems can be frequently overcome by ecological engineering to make the environment more suitable for native biodiversity, and/or assisted dispersal to allow suitable native organisms to reach appropriate sites within artificial ecosystems. Altering some habitats to become less analogous may help reduce impacts of pest species in urban and industrial areas.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it