<i>Mimosa pigra</i> in eastern and southern Africa: Distribution and socio‐ecological impacts
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The semiaquatic weed Mimosa pigra has negative impacts on biodiversity, fishing, crop and livestock production, and tourism in most places where it has been introduced, established and proliferated. Many of the ecological impacts are well known, but its impacts on rural livelihoods are less well documented, especially in Africa. We mapped the distribution of M. pigra in eastern and southern Africa, and then compared that with its potential distribution based on an ecoclimatic niche model. Household interviews were conducted to assess the impacts of this weed on local livelihoods. Mimosa pigra was found to be invasive in western Ethiopia, around the shores of Lake Victoria and Lake Tanganyika, and along the Tanzanian coastline, northern Malawi, parts of Mozambique and along the Kafue River and in the Barotse floodplain on the Zambezi River in Zambia. According to respondents living along the Kafue River floodplains in Zambia, it has a negative impact on biodiversity, wildlife, livestock, crop production, fishing and mobility. Dense stands prevented the movement of people and livestock, limiting access to croplands, grazing lands and fishing areas. Fish catches have been reduced and fishing equipment damaged. All respondents agreed that their livelihood options would be considerably enhanced if M. pigra was removed from the landscape. Based on its current and potential impact, we therefore recommend that an integrated management plan be developed and implemented, including the appropriate use of biological control agents to reduce the negative impacts of the weed.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 it