MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Importance of Farmland Habitats for Conservation of Plant Species

2002· article· en· W2048617275 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kathryn E. Freemark, Céline Boutin, Cathy J. Keddy

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Biology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsSpecies richnessHabitatHerbaceous plantEcologyAbundance (ecology)GeographyMonocultureShrubBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Little attention has been paid, particularly in North America, to the importance of the mosaic of farmland habitats for the conservation of native plant species. We examined patterns in plant species richness, composition, and abundance at the scale of site, habitat (sites of a given habitat type pooled), and landscape for 10 farmland habitats (crop, hay field, pasture, old field, herbaceous fencerow, woody fencerow, roadside, ditch, plantation, woodlot) at 121 sites in eastern Ontario, Canada. At the site level, woodlots (3–79 ha) had the highest richness of overall (average 57.6 species), woody (23.4), and herbaceous species (25.0). Crop, herbaceous fencerow, and plantation habitats had few native species per site. Introduced species comprised>50% of herbs per site in seven habitats. Across habitats, 305 species were observed; 227 species were herbaceous, 70% of which were native and 31% of which were weeds. Wooded fencerows had the highest species richness in total (153) and for herbs (107). Woodlots had the most woody species (56). Percent native species was generally lower and percent weeds higher at the site level than at the habitat level. All habitats had unique species; woodlots had the highest number of unique species ( 74). Results of the multivariate analysis for abundant herbs revealed that woodlots and plantations were different, as were crop and ditch habitats. The results of our landscape‐level study show that plant species richness and composition varied substantially among the five landscapes studied, ranging from a row‐crop monoculture landscape to a diverse mosaic of crop and noncrop habitat landscape. The row‐crop monoculture landscape had 11% of total, 4% of native, 27% of introduced, and 27% of the weed species found in the landscape with a greater diversity of crop and noncrop habitats. The richness of introduced and weed species was asymptotic with the addition of ditch, hayfield, and pasture in the landscape, and native species richness increased steeply, particularly with the addition of marsh, wooded fencerow, and woodlot. Our results emphasize the importance of maintaining a diverse mosaic of habitats and of noncrop habitats in farmland for conserving herbaceous and woody native plants.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations110
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConservation BiologySame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207