MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4364382607 · doi:10.1002/2688-8319.12221

The relative effectiveness of different grassland restoration methods: A systematic literature search and meta‐analysis

2023· article· en· W4364382607 on OpenAlex
Daniel Slodowicz, Aure Durbecq, Emma Ladouceur, René Eschen, Jean‐Yves Humbert, Raphaël Arlettaz

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Solutions and Evidence · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Centre for International Agricultural ResearchAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNational Science FoundationMinistry of Agriculture of the People's Republic of ChinaDeutsches Zentrum für integrative Biodiversitätsforschung Halle-Jena-LeipzigAssociation Nationale de la Recherche et de la TechnologieCAB InternationalSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsSpecies richnessGrasslandBiodiversityMeta-analysisTemperate climateRestoration ecologyBiologyPlant speciesEcologyPollinationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Active grassland restoration has gained importance in mitigating the dramatic decline of farmnland biodiversity. While there is evidence that such operations are generally effective in promoting plant diversity, little is known about the effectiveness of the different methods applied. Restoration methods can differ in intensity of seed bed preparation, seed source and method of seed application. In this systematic literature search and meta‐analysis, we screened the literature for studies of the restoration of mesic grasslands in temperate Europe. We focused on active restoration experiments that included a treatment and lasted for more than 3 years. We evaluated the influence of restoration factors on plant species richness relative to non‐restored controls. We found 187 articles that investigated the outcome of operations aimed at actively restoring mesic temperate grasslands. Most articles focused on plants, with only 9.6% dealing with other organisms (e.g. beetles, pollinating insects). Many papers had to be excluded due to incomplete data, too short study duration and/or lack of an adequate control. This resulted in 13 articles fulfilling our criteria for inclusion, yielding a total of 56 data points for the meta‐analysis. Restoration actions increased plant species richness by, on average, 17.4%, compared to controls. The seed source explained a significant amount of variation in plant species richness: seeds originating from a speciose donor grassland had a positive effect. This effect was even enhanced when combined with a commercial seed mix, whereas commercial seed mixes alone had no significant effect. We did not observe any effect of other factors, such as the type of seed bed preparation or the seed application method. A seed‐source obtained from species‐rich grasslands seems to be key to efficient grassland restoration in mesic grasslands of temperate Europe. Even though seeds from a speciose donor grassland should be preferred over commercial seeds, associating natural and commercial seed mixes increases plant species richness. This systematic literature search further revealed two major research gaps in grassland restoration ecology: a deficit in long‐term investigations as well as a deficit in studies focusing on non‐plant organisms.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.280 · 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