Challenges and opportunities in developing decision support systems for risk assessment and management of forest invasive alien species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biological invasions represent an increasing threat to ecosystems worldwide, with negative ecological and socio-economic impacts, whereas risk assessment and management remain challenging. The development of decision support systems (DSS) has the potential to help decision-makers and managers mitigate invasive species, but few DSS exist for forest invasive alien species (FIAS). The use of DSS in forestry is not new but they represent an asset in decision making in times of increasing complexity of issues foresters face and factors to consider. Yet, few forest DSS address the problem of FIAS. In this review, we identify key elements of the FIAS risk-assessment and management decision-making process, discuss these elements with a model-based DSS development perspective, and summarize outstanding challenges and opportunities for FIAS DSS development. FIAS DSS should not only estimate the probability of FIAS invasion but also consider forest vulnerability and quantify exposure (i.e., value at risk), while allowing different threat scenarios and possible solutions to be compared. Such a complete risk assessment and management calls for integrative modelling approaches that explicitly link different components of FIAS invasion, management, and impact assessment into a DSS. Such integrative modelling is challenging and may require collaboration among experts of different domains. International collaboration is also needed to facilitate data exchange, as the lack of data is one of the main challenges. In many cases, data and ecological knowledge of invasive species are too limited (in quantity or quality) to constitute useful input to DSS or their components (e.g., species distribution model). Another challenge is to better consider the multiple sources of uncertainties inherent to modelling invasions (e.g., host preferences and behavior, forest vulnerability, potential impacts, and cost and benefits of mitigation actions) when assessing FIAS risk and communicating results from risk assessment. Communication with stakeholders and DSS end-users, in fact, appears as one of the keys to successful DSS development and appropriation, not only to ensure that they correspond to end-users’ needs but also to ensure ease of use, functionality, and good visualization of DSS outputs.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".