A global review identifies agriculture as the main threat to declining grassland birds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grasslands are globally threatened and their biodiversity, including grassland birds, is declining markedly. To inform grassland bird conservation globally, we systematically reviewed threats and conservation actions for grassland birds, extracting data from 528 papers. Across the 10 primary grassland regions of the globe, agriculture was the most frequently or joint most frequently reported threat in nine regions (reported as a threat in 73% of publications); hunting was the most frequently reported threat in the remaining region. Natural system modifications (reported as a threat in 32% of publications) and climate change and severe weather (24%) were less frequently reported threats compared with agriculture. The types of threat from agriculture varied regionally, but the most pervasive were livestock farming and ranching (reported in 58% of publications where agriculture was a primary threat) and non‐timber cropping (43%). Most agricultural threats relate to intensification, but agricultural abandonment, typically the cessation of grazing, sometimes accompanied by tree planting/succession, poses an emerging threat to some grassland birds (reported in 32% of publications where agriculture was a primary threat). The most frequent conservation actions implemented to date include land/water management and protection, and species‐specific management actions. Authors of reviewed publications in almost all regions recommend more land/water management, followed by calls for further land/water protection. The parlous state of grassland birds globally suggests that existing conservation actions for grasslands are inadequate. Furthermore, our review suggests that these should be primarily targeted at reversing the negative impacts of agriculture, in particular livestock farming and cropping.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".