Tide-excluded banked wetlands on the marine plains of northeastern Australia provide important habitat for migratory shorebirds, other threatened bird species and the Capricorn Yellow Chat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context Banked systems that modify natural wetlands to enhance reliability of grass production for cattle are common along coastal Central Queensland. These are mostly positioned in the supratidal zone of extensive marine plains, leaving mangroves and saltmarsh with regular tidal influence intact. Perceived negative impacts on fisheries and carbon sequestration are frequently cited as reasons to remove banks and restore tidal influence, yet there is no specific evidence relating to the banked wetlands in this region. All ecosystem services provided by these systems need to be considered before decisions are made. Aims This study aimed to evaluate the biodiversity values of marine plains with tide-exclusion banks. Methods Five banked sites (39 000 ha) were compared to a single unbanked site of similar vegetation and tidal position with multiple counts of waterbirds (13–48/site) over several years. Key results Banked sites collectively supported six threatened and 22 migratory species, including 17 migratory shorebirds, some with counts of international importance. All sites matched criteria used to define Ramsar wetlands. Banked sites had more waterbird species and a similar species richness of migratory shorebirds to the unbanked site. Conclusions Given these wetlands support substantial numbers of migratory shorebirds and endangered species such as Capricorn Yellow Chat, as well as their importance to food production and improving water quality reaching reef ecosystems, any proposed ‘restoration’ of these areas to the previous tide-influenced state should be subject to impact assessment. Implications Our study demonstrates that existing tide-excluded banked wetlands are beneficial for biodiversity and economic production, soundly justifying their retention.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".