Reassembling island ecosystems: the case of Lord Howe Island
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Exotic species that invade remote islands, usually following human settlement, have had catastrophic effects on native biota. However, on islands it is increasingly feasible to eradicate key exotic species allowing extant native species to recover in situ or to return naturally. The practice of marooning threatened species on islands where the threat is absent, irrespective of whether the threatened species once occurred on the island, is well established. However, less focus has been given to the ‘island’ as the management unit on which to return extirpated species or related surrogates for extinct species. We use the example of Lord Howe Island as a case study to explore options for island restoration should the remaining critical exotic pests (rodents and perhaps owls in this case) be eradicated as planned. Lord Howe Island, in the south‐west Pacific Ocean, is remote, biologically diverse, has a high degree of endemism, and was only discovered by humans in 1778. Consequently, the original and exotic biota and their interactions are all better known than for many islands with a more ancient human history. Two species of plants, nine terrestrial birds, one bat and at least four invertebrates have been lost from the island since 1778. One plant and two invertebrates could be returned as conspecifics. One plant and all the terrestrial birds that are extinct could be replaced by closely related species from elsewhere in the Pacific Ocean. Decisions on replacing extinct species with surrogates should be based on the taxonomic relatedness of the candidates for reintroduction: the same species before subspecies before genera, with functional replacement being a further filter on candidates that are not the same species. In our opinion, taxa with functional equivalence but without taxonomic relatedness would not be acceptable candidates for reintroduction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".