MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321503933 · doi:10.1098/rsos.220437

The ties that bind the sagebrush biome: integrating genetic connectivity into range-wide conservation of greater sage-grouse

2023· article· en· W4321503933 on OpenAlexaffabout
Todd B. Cross, Jason D. Tack, David E. Naugle, Michael K. Schwartz, Kevin E. Doherty, Sara J. Oyler‐McCance, Ronald D. Pritchert, Bradley C. Fedy

Bibliographic record

VenueRoyal Society Open Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Resources Conservation ServiceU.S. Bureau of Land ManagementU.S. Geological SurveyGreat Northern Landscape Conservation CooperativeU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
KeywordsBiomeLandscape connectivityWoodlandHabitatGeographyRange (aeronautics)PopulationEcologyEnvironmental resource managementEcosystemBiologyBiological dispersalEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conserving genetic connectivity is fundamental to species persistence, yet rarely is made actionable into spatial planning for imperilled species. Climate change and habitat degradation have added urgency to embrace connectivity into networks of protected areas. Our two-step process integrates a network model with a functional connectivity model, to identify population centres important to maintaining genetic connectivity then to delineate those pathways most likely to facilitate connectivity thereamong for the greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ), a species of conservation concern ranging across eleven western US states and into two Canadian provinces. This replicable process yielded spatial action maps, able to be prioritized by importance to maintaining range-wide genetic connectivity. We used these maps to investigate the efficacy of 3.2 million ha designated as priority areas for conservation (PACs) to encompass functional connectivity. We discovered that PACs encompassed 41.1% of cumulative functional connectivity—twice the amount of connectivity as random—and disproportionately encompassed the highest-connectivity landscapes. Comparing spatial action maps to impedances to connectivity such as cultivation and woodland expansion allows both planning for future management and tracking outcomes from past efforts.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRoyal Society Open ScienceSame topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207