Choosing cost-effective locations for conservation fences in the local landscape
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context Exclosure fences are widely used to reintroduce locally extinct animals. These fences function either as permanent landscape-scale areas free from most predators, or as small-scale temporary acclimatisation areas for newly translocated individuals to be ‘soft released’ into the wider landscape. Existing research can help managers identify the best design for their exclosure fence, but there are currently no methods available to help identify the optimal location for these exclosures in the local landscape (e.g. within a property). Aims We outline a flexible decision-support tool that can help managers choose the best location for a proposed exclosure fence. We applied this method to choose the site of a predator-exclusion fence within the proposed Lorna Glen (Matuwa) Conservation Park in the rangelands of central Western Australia. Methods The decision was subject to a set of economic, ecological and political constraints that were applied sequentially. The final exclosure fence location, chosen from among those sites that satisfied the constraints, optimised conservation outcomes by maximising the area enclosed. Key results From a prohibitively large set of potential exclosure locations, the series of constraints reduced the number of candidates down to 32. When ranked by the total area enclosed, one exclosure location was clearly superior. Conclusions By describing the decision-making process explicitly and quantitatively, and systematically considering each of the candidate solutions, our approach identifies an efficient exclosure fence location via a repeatable and transparent process. Implications The construction of an exclusion fence is an expensive management option, and therefore needs to convincingly demonstrate a high expected return-on-investment. A systematic approach for choosing the location of an exclosure fence provides managers with a decision that can be justified to funding sources and stakeholders.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it