MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Management options for river conservation planning: condition and conservation re‐visited

2007· article· en· W2134676498 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Linke, Robert L. Pressey, Robert C. Bailey, Richard H. Norris

Bibliographic record

VenueFreshwater Biology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsLand useLandscape connectivityEnvironmental scienceAgricultural landEnvironmental resource managementLand coverDrainage basinEcologyVegetation (pathology)GeographyBiologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary 1. Systematic conservation planning is a process widely used in terrestrial and marine environments. A principal goal is to establish a network of protected areas representing the full variety of species or ecosystems. We suggest considering three key attributes of a catchment when planning for aquatic conservation: irreplaceability, condition and vulnerability. 2. Based on observed and modelled distributions of 367 invertebrates in the Australian state of Victoria, conservation value was measured by calculating an irreplaceability coefficient for 1854 subcatchments. Irreplaceability indicates the likelihood of any subcatchment being needed to achieve conservation targets. We estimated it with a bootstrapped heuristic reserve design algorithm, which included upstream–downstream connectivity rules. The selection metric within the algorithm was total summed rarity, corrected for protected area. 3. Condition was estimated using a stressor gradient approach in which two classes of geographical information system Layers were summarised using principal components analysis. The first class was disturbance measures such as nutrient and sediment budgets, salinisation and weed cover. The second class was land use layers, including classes of forestry, agricultural and urban use. The main gradient, explaining 56% of the variation, could be characterised as agricultural disturbance. Seventy‐five per cent of the study area was classified as disturbed. 4. Our definition of vulnerability was the likelihood of a catchment being exposed to a land use that degrades its condition. This was estimated by comparing land capability and current land use. If land was capable of supporting a land use that would have a more degrading effect on a river than its current tenure, it was classified vulnerable (66% of the study area). 79% of catchments contained more then 50% vulnerable land. 5. When integrating the three measures, two major groups of catchments requiring urgent conservation measures were identified. Seven per cent of catchments were highly irreplaceable, highly vulnerable but in degraded condition. These catchments were flagged for restoration. While most highly irreplaceable catchments in good condition were already protected, 2.5% of catchments in this category are on vulnerable land. These are priority areas for assigning river reserves.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0630.004

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations134
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFreshwater BiologySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207