ACCOUNTING FOR SYSTEM DYNAMICS IN RESERVE DESIGN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Systematic conservation plans have only recently considered the dynamic nature of ecosystems. Methods have been developed to incorporate climate change, population dynamics, and uncertainty in reserve design, but few studies have examined how to account for natural disturbance. Considering natural disturbance in reserve design may be especially important for the world's remaining intact areas, which still experience active natural disturbance regimes. We developed a spatially explicit, dynamic simulation model, CONSERV, which simulates patch dynamics and fire, and used it to evaluate the efficacy of hypothetical reserve networks in northern Canada. We designed six networks based on conventional reserve design methods, with different conservation targets for woodland caribou habitat, high-quality wetlands, vegetation, water bodies, and relative connectedness. We input the six reserve networks into CONSERV and tracked the ability of each to maintain initial conservation targets through time under an active natural disturbance regime. None of the reserve networks maintained all initial targets, and some over-represented certain features, suggesting that both effectiveness and efficiency of reserve design could be improved through use of spatially explicit dynamic simulation during the planning process. Spatial simulation models of landscape dynamics are commonly used in natural resource management, but we provide the first illustration of their potential use for reserve design. Spatial simulation models could be used iteratively to evaluate competing reserve designs and select targets that have a higher likelihood of being maintained through time. Such models could be combined with dynamic planning techniques to develop a general theory for reserve design in an uncertain world.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".