A Network-Based Method to Detect Patterns of Local Crop Biodiversity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this chapter, we develop new indicators and statistical tests to characterize patterns of crop diversity at local scales to better understand interactions between ecological and socio-cultural functions of agroecosystems. Farms, where a large number of crops (species or landraces) is grown, are known to contribute a large part of the locally available diversity of both rare and common crops but the role of farms with low diversity remains little understood: do they grow only common varieties—following a nestedness pattern typical of mutualistic networks in ecology—or do ‘crop–poor’ farmers also grow rare varieties? This question is pivotal in ongoing efforts to assess the local-scale contribution of small farms to global agrobiodiversity. We develop new network-based approaches to characterize the distribution of local crop diversity (species and infra-species) at the village level and to validate these approaches using meta-datasets from 10 countries. Our results highlight the sources of heterogeneity in crop diversity at the village level. We often identify two or more groups of farms based on their different levels of diversity. In some datasets, ‘crop–poor’ farms significantly contribute to the local crop diversity. Generally, we find that the distribution of crop diversity is more heterogeneous at the species than at the infra-species level. This analysis reveals the absence of a general pattern of crop diversity distribution, suggesting strong dependence on local agro-ecological and socio-cultural contexts. These different patterns of crop diversity distribution reflect an heterogeneity in farmers’ self-organized action in cultivating and maintaining local crop diversity, which ensures the adaptability of agroecosystems to global change.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".