High conservation priority of range-edge plant populations not matched by habitat protection or research effort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT High-latitude countries tend to contain the polar range-edge of many species that are nationally rare but globally common. This can focus national conservation efforts toward range-edge populations, whose conservation needs and value are disputed. Using plants in Canada as a case study, we ask whether national species-conservation rankings prioritize range-edge populations, and whether conservation priority is matched by habitat protection and research effort. We found that >75% of federally-protected plants only occur in Canada peripherally, at the northernmost 20% or less of their total range, and that the most imperilled taxa had the smallest percentage of their range in Canada (endangered plants: median=1.0%). Occurring peripherally in Canada was associated with higher threat even after accounting for range area, potentially because range-edge taxa experienced 85% higher human population densities in their Canadian range than non-peripheral taxa. High conservation priority was not matched by habitat protection, as more imperilled and more peripheral taxa had smaller fractions of their Canadian range in protected areas. Finally, peer-reviewed research on plants at-risk in Canada was low. Only 42% of plants considered at-risk in Canada had been studied in Canada, and only 11% of species with large distributions outside Canada had been studied in the context of their wider geographic range—information that is critical to establishing their relative conservation value. Our results illustrate that plant conservation in Canada is fundamentally linked to conserving range-edge populations, yet edge populations themselves are understudied, a research gap we must close to improve evidence-based conservation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".