MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041024465 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1320585111

Effect of woody-plant encroachment on livestock production in North and South America

2014· article· en· W2041024465 on OpenAlexaff
José D. Anadón, Osvaldo E. Sala, B. L. Turner, Elena M. Bennett

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgroforestry and silvopastoral systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLivestockAgroforestryProduction (economics)Woody plantGeographyForestryEnvironmental scienceBiologyEcologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A large fraction of the world grasslands and savannas are undergoing a rapid shift from herbaceous to woody-plant dominance. This land-cover change is expected to lead to a loss in livestock production (LP), but the impacts of woody-plant encroachment on this crucial ecosystem service have not been assessed. We evaluate how tree cover (TC) has affected LP at large spatial scales in rangelands of contrasting social-economic characteristics in the United States and Argentina. Our models indicate that in areas of high productivity, a 1% increase in TC results in a reduction in LP ranging from 0.6 to 1.6 reproductive cows (Rc) per km(2). Mean LP in the United States is 27 Rc per km(2), so a 1% increase in TC results in a 2.5% decrease in mean LP. This effect is large considering that woody-plant cover has been described as increasing at 0.5% to 2% per y. On the contrary, in areas of low productivity, increased TC had a positive effect on LP. Our results also show that ecological factors account for a larger fraction of LP variability in Argentinean than in US rangelands. Differences in the relative importance of ecological versus nonecological drivers of LP in Argentina and the United States suggest that the valuation of ecosystem services between these two rangelands might be different. Current management strategies in Argentina are likely designed to maximize LP for various reasons we are unable to explore in this effort, whereas land managers in the United States may be optimizing multiple ecosystem services, including conservation or recreation, alongside LP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations200
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicAgroforestry and silvopastoral systemsFrench-language works237,207