Understanding the Value of Local Ecological Knowledge and Practices for Habitat Restoration in Human-Altered Floodplain Systems: A Case from Bangladesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Worldwide there is a declining trend in natural fish catch (FAO, The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/007/y5600e/y5600e00.htm , 2002) and Bangladesh is no exception. The vast inland fisheries of Bangladesh have been declining over the years, largely a result of human alteration of the aquatic habitats arising from human interventions in the floodplain systems such as the establishment of water control structures which favor agricultural production but reduce fish habitats. It can be assumed that conventional management measures are not adequate to conserve natural fisheries and exploring alternative knowledge systems to complement existing management is warranted. This paper focuses on local ecological knowledge and several other local practices held by fishers engaging directly with floodplain ecosystems. These knowledge systems and practices may be valuable tools for understanding ecosystems processes and related changes and developing local level responses to avert negative consequences of such changes. This may help in devising alternatives to ecosystem management and the conservation of floodplain fish habitats of Bangladesh and elsewhere in the world. This study was conducted in a natural depression (locally called beel) and its surrounding floodplain system located in north central Bangladesh which has become highly degraded. The results of the study indicate that the fishers and local users of the floodplain ecosystems are rich in local ecological knowledge concerning the hydrology of the floodplains and small lakes, the habitat preferences of fish, the role of agricultural crops on fish habitats, and the impact of habitat human interventions in aquatic ecosystems. Given the apparent inadequacy of the present management regime, this article argues for an inclusion of local knowledge and practices into habitat management as a more holistic approach to floodplain habitat restoration and conservation that encourages multi-level cooperation and which builds on diversified knowledge systems.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".