Demographic evidence that development is not compatible with sustainability in semi‐urban freshwater turtles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Balancing urban development with environmental sustainability is a major challenge that is increasingly recognized in planning decisions. Urban development proposals are often approved with the expectation that deleterious impacts on native species will be constrained, but this assumption is rarely tested over sufficient timelines to confirm its validity for long‐lived, at‐risk species. We tracked changes in Blanding's turtle ( Emydoidea blandingii ) habitat availability and demography over 10 years near Ottawa, ON, Canada, to determine whether urban development and associated mitigation measures were sufficient to ensure long‐term population persistence. Suitable turtle habitat declined by 10% during the study, and wetland corridors were essentially lost. Habitat loss coincided with a marked reduction in adult turtle apparent survival, resulting in a 70% decline in population size. Adult females experienced the greatest decline, and despite wildlife fencing and culvert placement as conditions of project approval, turtle road mortality likely was the primary cause of the decline. Deterministic population viability analysis revealed that ~4 adult female road mortalities (of an initial 56 females) per year produced a comparable decline to that observed in our population estimates; at this rate, the population will likely breach its quasi‐extinction threshold (4 females) in under a decade. Accordingly, we infer that in our study area, approved urban development was not compatible with at‐risk turtle population viability. Our findings imply that urban development approval conditions, even when conducted in the context of seemingly robust species‐at‐risk protection, can be inadequate to ensure sustainability. We contend that if environmental sustainability is to be prioritized, urban development projects in areas occupied by at‐risk species must be subject to more stringent oversight during the planning, approval and implementation phases.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".