Spatial analysis of the coincidence of rare vascular plants and landforms in the Carolinian zone of Canada: implications for protection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessing biodiversity in natural landscapes continues to be a focus of attention. While some researchers assess the value of predictive features, such as land‐form, others examine concentrations of rare species, seeking insight into their significance. In this paper I examine two inter‐related concepts. I explore the distributions of rare species on the landscape, assessing correlations between landform, numbers of rare species, and protected areas. I also examine the role of protected sites in maintaining biodiversity. Using records of rare plant collections for the south‐western portion of Ontario (the Carolinian zone) that were compiled as part of the Atlas of Rare Vascular Plants of Ontario project, and combining these with a) a map of the landforms of south‐western Ontario and b) the locations of protected areas within this region, an analysis was made of the spatial coincidence of rare vascular plants, landforms and protected areas. The findings here indicate that protected areas are critically aligned with the distribution of rare vascular plant species. While protected areas occupy less than 2 percent of the study region, approximately 20 percent of the 4379 unique rare plant records analyzed (representing 170 of the 293 rare species in the database or 68%) were collected from a protected site. In addition, while 42 percent of the rare vascular plant records occur on a single landform type, sand plains, sand plains occupy only 18 percent of the region. And while 24 percent of the study region is composed of till plains, less than 2 percent of the rare plant collections were found on this landform. Significantly, four land‐forms, representing 50 percent of the study region, support over 80 percent of all rare plant collections. L'évaluation de biodiversité dans les paysages naturels continue d'être un point de mire. Pendant que certains chercheurs estiment la valeur des caracteristiques prédictives, telles que des formes de relief, d'autres examinent les concentrations d'espèces rares pour comprendre leur signification. Dans cet exposé, j'examine deux concepts intereliés. J'explore les distributions d'espèces rares dans le paysage, évaluant les corrélations entre les formes de relief, les nombres d'espèces rares, et les sites protégés. J'examine aussi le rôle des sites protégés dans la conservation de biodiversité. La coïncidence spatiale des plantes vasculaires rares, formes de relief, et sites protégés a été analysée. L'analyse utilise, en partie, l'inventaire de collections de plantes rares pour une région dans le sud‐ouest de l'Ontario. Cet inventaire a été compilé pour le projet Atlas of Rare Vascular Plants of Ontario. L'analyse totale combine cet inventaire avec (a) une carte des formes de relief dans le sud‐ouest de l'Ontario et (b) les emplacements des sites protégés dans la même région. Les resultats indiquent que les sites protégés sont fortement alignés avec la distribution d'espèces rares. Alors que les sites protégés occupent mains que 2 pour cent de la region étudiée, environ 20 pour cent des 4379 plantes rares uniques analysées (représentant 7 70 des 293 espèces rares dans la banque de données ou 68%) se trouvent sur des sites protégés. De plus, alors que 42 pour cent des plantes rares se retrouvent sur un seul type de forme de relief (plaine de sable), ce type occupe seulement 18 pour cent de la région. Et alors que les plaines constituent 24 pour cent de la région, mains que 2 pour cent des plantes rares se retrouvent sur celles‐ci. Fait révélateur, quatre formes de relief constituent 50 pour cent la région étudiée mais elles soutiennent plus que 80 pour cent des plantes rares.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".