Assessing the potential delivery of ecosystem services by farmlands under contrasting management intensities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Farming systems under contrasting management practices can contribute differently to the delivery of bundles of ecosystem services (ES) in agricultural landscapes. Low intensity farming systems, such as High Nature Value farmlands, are expected to deliver a wider range of ES, whereas landscapes under more intensive management are expected to deliver mainly provisioning services. Understanding the management practices associated with desirable outcomes in terms of biodiversity and ES in agricultural landscapes is needed. Our research aimed to understand the links between the delivery of ES bundles associated with agricultural landscapes, and their socio-ecological drivers, using a region in northern Portugal as a case study. Based on publicly available data on ecosystems services and drivers, we analyzed ES associations, delineated ES bundles, and investigated their relationship with socio-ecological drivers. Overall, our results suggested spatial trade-offs between landscapes delivering provisioning services of high economic value, and landscapes delivering a more balanced set of multiple ES. Bundle analysis highlighted an association between higher landscape multifunctionality and higher values of landscape complexity, higher number of farmers, and farm sizes. Our results reflected the complexity of social and ecological factors operating at the landscape level, pinpointed landscapes with higher multifunctionality and disclosed the conditions underlying their occurrence. The results also highlighted the importance of low-intensity farming systems, namely those supporting High Nature Value farmlands, for the delivery of a wider range of ES at the landscape scale.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".