MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328922889 · doi:10.1111/aec.12337

Habitat preference of the striped legless lizard: Implications of grazing by native herbivores and livestock for conservation of grassland biota

2016· article· en· W2328922889 on OpenAlexaff
Brett Howland, Dejan Stojanović, Iain J. Gordon, Don Fletcher, Melissa Snape, Ingrid Stirnemann, David B. Lindenmayer

Bibliographic record

VenueAustral Ecology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
FundersAustralian Government
KeywordsGrazingGrasslandThreatened speciesHerbivoreEcologyConservation grazingGrazing pressureHabitatExtinction (optical mineralogy)LivestockFaunaBiologyAgroforestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Across the globe, many species of reptile are threatened with extinction, with changes in grazing pressure as a significant factor in their decline. Few studies have investigated the role of native herbivores, yet studying natural grazers may provide insight into natural grazing regimes, not apparent in studies of domestic livestock. In this study, we investigate the habitat requirements of a threatened Australian grassland reptile, the striped legless lizard,Delma impar, in grasslands grazed by a native herbivore, the eastern grey kangarooMacropus giganteus.Delma imparappears sensitive to habitat change resulting from altered grazing intensity, but a lack of information hinders implementation of appropriate grazing regimes. To address this gap, we investigated habitat preferences ofD. imparat multiple spatial scales across a grazing gradient. We found that the occurrence ofD. imparwas not affected by the size of grassland remnants, but was negatively related to the density of native grazers. This result was likely a consequence of the negative effect of high grazing intensity on grass structural complexity, as the probability of encountering aD. imparwas positively related to grass structural complexity at the fine scale (1 m2). We recommend that conservation efforts should avoid high intensity grazing (equivalent to > 1.3 kangaroos/ha), yet ensure enough grazing disturbance is maintained to promote the formation of complex grass structures. We also recommend that small floristically degraded and fragmented grassland habitat should be included in conservation efforts. These recommendations will likely benefit a number of faunal species in grasslands grazed by domestic and native grazers. Importantly, our data highlight the need for managing grazing regimes, even in environments dominated by native herbivores.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations42
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustral EcologySame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207