MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304165994 · doi:10.3389/fenvs.2022.905767

Biodiversity outcomes of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation: Characterising the evidence base

2022· article· en· W4304165994 on OpenAlexaff
Isabel Key, Alison Smith, Beth Turner, Alexandre Chausson, Cécile Girardin, Megan Macgillivray, Nathalie Seddon

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Environmental Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersUniversity of OxfordOxford Martin School, University of OxfordNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UKWaterloo Foundation
KeywordsBiodiversityEcosystemClimate changeEnvironmental resource managementEcosystem healthEcosystem servicesPsychological interventionSpecies richnessBiomass (ecology)EcologyEnvironmental scienceBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nature-based solutions (NbS) are increasingly recognised for their potential to address both the climate and biodiversity crises. Both these outcomes rely on the capacity of NbS to support and enhance the health of an ecosystem: its biodiversity, the condition of its abiotic and biotic elements, and its capacity to continue to function despite environmental change. However, while understanding of ecosystem health outcomes of NbS for climate change mitigation has developed in recent years, the outcomes of those implemented for adaptation remain poorly understood. To address this, we systematically reviewed the outcomes of 109 nature-based interventions for climate change adaptation using 33 indicators of ecosystem health across eight broad categories (e.g., diversity, biomass, ecosystem composition). We showed that 88% of interventions with reported positive outcomes for climate change adaptation also reported benefits for ecosystem health. We also showed that interventions were associated with a 67% average increase in species richness. All eight studies that reported benefits for both climate change mitigation and adaptation also supported ecosystem health, leading to a “triple win.” However, there were also trade-offs, mainly for forest management and creation of novel ecosystems such as monoculture plantations of non-native species. Our review highlights two key limitations in our understanding of the outcomes of NbS for ecosystem health. First, a limited selection of metrics are used and these rarely include key aspects such as functional diversity and habitat connectivity. Second, taxonomic coverage is limited: 50% of interventions only had evidence for effects on plants, and 57% of outcomes did not distinguish between native and non-native species. We make suggestions of how to improve assessments of the ecosystem health outcomes of NbS, as well as policy recommendations to enable the upscaling of NbS that support flourishing and resilient ecosystems, and are effective in addressing both climate and biodiversity goals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.113
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.113
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations87
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Environmental ScienceSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207