MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3087519157 · doi:10.1111/nrm.12286

Protecting wildlife habitat in managed forest landscapes—How can network connectivity models help?

2020· article· en· W3087519157 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueNatural Resource Modeling · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and ForestryNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWoodland caribouHabitatWildlifeCritical habitatTaigaBorealForest managementGeographyEnvironmental scienceHabitat conservationHabitat destructionEnvironmental resource managementEcologyAgroforestryEndangered speciesForestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Industrial forestry in boreal regions increases fragmentation and may decrease the viability of some wildlife populations, particularly the woodland caribou, Rangifer tarandus caribou . Caribou protection often calls for changes in forestry practices, which may increase the cost and reduce the available timber supply. We present a linear programming model that assesses the trade‐off between habitat protection and harvesting objectives by combining harvest scheduling and optimal habitat connectivity problems. We formulate the habitat connectivity model as a network flow problem that maximizes the amount of habitat connected over a desired time span in a forested landscape, while the forestry objective maximizes net undiscounted revenues from timber harvest subject to even harvest flow and environmental sustainability constraints. We applied the approach to explore the trade‐off between caribou habitat protection and harvesting goals in the Armstrong‐Whitesand Forest, Ontario, Canada, a boreal forest area with prime caribou habitat. Our model also incorporates Dynamic Caribou Harvesting Scheduling (DCHS), a harvest policy currently in a place in Ontario that aims to balance the forest management and caribou protection goals in northern boreal regions. In our study area, the implementation of DCHS appears to have relatively minor impact on timber supply cost. By comparison, maximizing the protection of caribou habitat would lead to a noticeable increase of the mill gate timber cost by $3.3 m −3 on average, while enabling habitat protection in an additional 5.0%–9.5% of the range area. Our model is generalizable and can be adapted for assessing habitat recovery and harvest goals in other regions. Recommendations for Resource Managers: Incorporating the concept of long‐term habitat connectivity into forest planning can help reduce the negative impacts of harvest activities on caribou populations. Prioritizing habitat connectivity leads to a small increase in the overall harvest area because harvest has to be allocated to less productive and more geographically isolated sites to protect prime wildlife habitat containing old conifer stands. Maximizing the habitat protection would lead to a noticeable increase of the timber supply cost (by $3.3 m −3 on average), while enabling moderate increase of the protected habitat area (i.e., an additional 5.0%–9.5% of the range area). Implementation of Dynamic Caribou Harvest Schedules, which is the current harvesting policy in Ontario's boreal forests when caribou populations are present, causes only a minor increase of the timber supply cost in our study area.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.197 · 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