MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2295005244 · doi:10.1111/acv.12262

Categorizing species by niche characteristics can clarify conservation planning in rapidly‐developing landscapes

2016· article· en· W2295005244 on OpenAlexaff
Aditya Gangadharan, Srinivas Vaidyanathan, Colleen Cassady St. Clair

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Conservation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersErasmus+Rufford FoundationWildlife Conservation Society
KeywordsFlagship speciesHabitatThreatened speciesEcologyGeographyElephasBiodiversityHabitat destructionIUCN Red ListWoodlandBiologyEndangered species

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In biodiversity‐rich landscapes that are developing rapidly, it is generally impossible to delineate land use and prioritize conservation actions in relation to the full variability of species and their responses to anthropogenic activity. Consequently, conservation policy often focuses on protecting habitat used by a few flagship, indicator or umbrella species like tigers Panthera tigris and Asian elephants Elephas maximus , which potentially leaves out species that do not share these habitat preferences. We demonstrate an empirical approach that clustered 14 mammals into surrogate groups that reflect their unique conservation needs. We surveyed a 787 km 2 multiple‐use area in the Shencottah Gap of the Western Ghats, India, using foot surveys and camera‐trap surveys. Using ecological niche factor analysis, we generated indices of species prevalence (marginality and tolerance) and habitat preferences (factor correlations to marginality axis). We then clustered species by both of the above index types to reveal four clusters based on prevalence and four clusters based on habitat preference. Most clusters contained at least one threatened species. Low‐prevalence lion‐tailed macaques Macaca silenus and tigers were strongly associated with closed forests and low human disturbance. But elephants, sloth bears Melursus ursinus and gaur Bos gaurus were more tolerant of anthropogenic impact, and sloth bears and gaur preferred open forests and grasslands. Dhole Cuon alpinus and sambar Rusa unicolor were associated with highly anthropogenic habitat (farmland, cash crop and forestry plantations) with high human use. Thus, reliance on flagship species for conservation planning can both underestimate and overestimate the ability of other species to persist in multiple‐use landscapes; protecting flagship species would only protect species with similar habitat preferences. For species that avoid human impacts more than the flagship species, core habitat must be protected from human disturbance. For more tolerant species, conservation in anthropogenic habitat may hinge on policies that bolster coexistence with humans.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations18
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal ConservationSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207