Distribution and connectivity of protected areas in the Americas facilitates transboundary conservation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large-scale anthropogenic changes to landscapes will cause species to move and shift their ranges against a backdrop of international political boundaries. Transboundary conservation efforts are therefore key to preserving intact and connected landscapes, particularly if such efforts can be implemented within the framework of protected area networks that provide for resiliency and persistence in the face of threats such as climate change. We studied the distribution, connectivity, and integrity of protected areas in regions near international borders within the Americas. We found that there is a greater proportion of land protected near vs. far from borders, with this effect extending approximately 125 km from the border. This trend was most pronounced when considering multiuse categories of protected areas in the analysis. We also found that there is greater connectivity of protected areas in border regions than more internally within countries, and relatively low rates of habitat loss within border-situated and internal protected areas. Our results indicate that protected area networks are larger and more connected if considered in a transboundary context and that efforts to conserve species and mitigate effects of long-term stressors like climate change will be most successful when planning includes neighboring countries. Despite a relative lack of attention to transboundary conservation in the Americas, our results suggest substantial opportunities for linking landscapes via a focus on international border regions and coordination across borders in protected areas management.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 teacher head, 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".