Efficiency of buffer zones around ponds to conserve odonates and songbirds in mined peat bogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patch isolation resulting from habitat loss and fragmentation generally has detrimental effects on associated species. Peatlands may be especially sensitive to such effects because peat mining results in drastic changes in the hydrology of natural remnants. This study aimed to assess the efficiency of conservation zones surrounding ponds in mined bogs for two taxa: songbirds and odonates. We compared songbird distribution and odonate assemblages between ponds isolated by peat mining (n=6–12) and control ponds (n=11–13) located in natural bogs. Birds did not show major responses to pond isolation, whether in terms of their relative abundance or reproductive activity. However, longer‐term data would be required to confirm this trend. In contrast, odonate abundance, as estimated from exuviae, was higher in natural ponds than in isolated ones. Some taxa, especially bog specialists, were more sensitive than others. Hence, pond isolation by peat mining significantly altered the structure of odonate assemblages. Pond size also influenced odonate abundances and distribution. Effective conservation of bog ponds should account not only for variations in the response of different taxa, but also for pond structural diversity, which influence species response to isolation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".