MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2987250276 · doi:10.1016/j.agee.2019.106698

Effects of farmland heterogeneity on biodiversity are similar to—or even larger than—the effects of farming practices

2019· article· en· W2987250276 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAgriculture Ecosystems & Environment · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiodiversityAgricultureCrop diversityAgroforestrySpecies richnessTillagePopulationGeographyCropAgricultural biodiversityLand useEcologyAgricultural landBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pressure to increase food production to meet the demands of a growing human population can make conservation-motivated recommendations to limit agricultural expansion impractical. Therefore, we need to identify conservation actions that can support biodiversity without taking land out of production. Previous studies suggest this can be accomplished by increasing “farmland heterogeneity”—i.e. heterogeneity of the cropped portions of agricultural landscapes—by, for example, decreasing field sizes. However, it is not yet clear whether policies/guidelines that promote farmland heterogeneity will be as effective as those targeting farming practices. Here, we estimated the relative effects of six practices—annual/perennial crop, fertilizer use, herbicide use, insecticide use, tile drainage, and tillage—versus two aspects of farmland heterogeneity—field size and crop diversity—on the diversity of herbaceous plants, woody plants, butterflies, syrphid flies, bees, carabid beetles, spiders, and birds in rural eastern Ontario, Canada. The strength of effect of farming practices and farmland heterogeneity varied among taxonomic groups. Nevertheless, we found important effects of both farming practices and farmland heterogeneity on the combined (multi) diversity across these groups. In particular, we found greater multidiversity in untilled, perennial crop fields than tilled, annual crop fields, and greater multidiversity in agricultural landscapes with smaller crop fields and less diverse crops. The directions of effect of these variables were generally consistent across individual taxonomic groups. For example, richness was lower in landscapes with larger fields and more diverse crops than in landscapes with smaller fields and less diverse crops for all taxa except spiders. The negative effect of crop diversity on multidiversity and the richness of most of the studied taxa indicates that this aspect of farmland heterogeneity does not necessarily benefit wildlife species. Nevertheless, a compelling implication of this study is that it suggests that policies/guidelines aimed at reducing crop field sizes would be at least as effective for conservation of biodiversity within working agricultural landscapes as those designed to promote a wildlife-friendly farming practice.

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.607
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.168 · 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