MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890266148 · doi:10.1111/acv.12446

Evaluating support for rangeland‐restoration practices by rural Somalis: an unlikely win‐win for local livelihoods and hirola antelope?

2018· article· en· W2890266148 on OpenAlexaff
Abdullahi H. Ali, Rajan Amin, Jeffrey S. Evans, Martha Fischer, Adam T. Ford, Amos Kibara, Jacob R. Goheen

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Conservation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland Management and Livestock Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersDisney Worldwide Conservation FundBritish Ecological SocietyInternational Foundation for ScienceZoological Society of LondonIdea WildRufford FoundationAssociation of Zoos and Aquariums
KeywordsOvergrazingRangelandAgroforestryLivestockLivelihoodGeographyPopulationEndangered speciesWildlife conservationWildlifeHabitatEnvironmental resource managementGrazingEcologyForestryBiologyAgricultureEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In developing countries, governments often lack the authority and resources to implement conservation outside of protected areas. In such situations, the integration of conservation with local livelihoods is crucial to species recovery and reintroduction efforts. The hirola Beatragus hunteri is the world's most endangered antelope, with a population of <500 individuals that is restricted to <5% of its historical geographic range on the Kenya–Somali border. Long‐term hirola declines have been attributed to a combination of disease and rangeland degradation. Tree encroachment—driven by some combination of extirpation of elephants, overgrazing by livestock, and perhaps fire suppression—is at least partly responsible for habitat loss and the decline of contemporary populations. Through interviews in local communities across the hirola's current range, we identified socially acceptable strategies for habitat restoration and hirola recovery. We used classification and regression trees, conditional inference trees, and generalized linear models to identify sociodemographic predictors of support for range‐restoration strategies. Locals supported efforts to conserve elephants (which kill trees and thus facilitate grass growth), seed and fertilize grass, and remove trees, but were opposed to livestock reduction. Locals were ambivalent toward controlled burns and soil ripping (a practice through which soil is broken up to prevent compaction). Livestock ownership and years of residency were key predictors of locals’ perceptions toward rangeland‐restoration practices. Locals owning few livestock were more supportive of elephant conservation, and seeding and fertilization of grass, while longer term residents were more supportive of livestock reduction but were less supportive of elephant conservation. Ultimately, wildlife conservation outside protected areas requires long‐term, community‐based efforts that are compatible with human livelihoods. We recommend elephant conservation, grass seeding and fertilization, manual tree removal and resting range from livestock both to enhance the potential for hirola recovery and to build positive rapport with local communities in the geographic range of this critically endangered species.

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)0.001
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 score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal ConservationSame topicRangeland Management and Livestock EcologyFrench-language works237,207