Improving the application of Important Plant Areas to conserve threatened habitats: a case study of Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Important Plant Areas (IPAs) are a successful method of identifying priority areas for plant conservation. Assessment of IPAs, however, often relies on criteria related to species, while incorporation of habitats has been less consistent. Using Uganda as a case study, we test the application of the threatened habitat criterion – criterion C. We identified nationally threatened habitats using Red List of Ecosystems criteria and assess, for the first time, how differing application of thresholds under criterion C can influence IPA network outcomes. Eleven threatened habitats were identified, with declines switching from predominantly forest to savanna after the mid-20 th century. Significantly, we found current IPA guidance on use of Criterion C needlessly limits the number of sites that qualify as IPAs. The “five best sites” threshold is reserved for countries where quantitative data is unavailable, however, the application of the relevant thresholds to quantitative data largely generated fewer than five IPAs, comparably limiting conservation opportunities identified. We recommend, therefore, that the “five best” threshold is available for application on both qualitative and quantitative data. This will bolster the value of IPAs in conserving and restoring threatened and ecologically important habitats under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".