Interactions between inland water‐based recreation and freshwater turtles: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Outdoor recreation brings countless benefits to humans. Understanding the inevitable human interactions with nature is essential for conserving the outdoors for years to come. Water‐based recreation in freshwater ecosystems is increasing in popularity, but freshwater biodiversity is in global decline. The aim of this review is to explore the interactions between water users and freshwater turtles during inland water‐based recreation. Thirty articles (most based in North America) were found to study human–turtle interactions during water‐based recreation, 29 of which reported water‐based recreational activities posing negative effects on freshwater turtle populations. Negative, direct effect interactions included boat collisions with turtles and accidental hooking of turtles with fishhooks. Negative, indirect effect interactions included human presence near habitats used by turtles and wake action with subsequent shoreline erosion. One article reported a positive interaction between humans and freshwater turtles when installing a non‐disruptive turtle observation deck. Eleven articles discussed conservation measures to mitigate turtle risks during water‐based recreation, but none evaluated their efficacy. Conservation measures included regulating boat types, sizes and access points, protecting habitats used by turtles, designating ‘no wake’ boating zones, restricting fishing permits, installing turtle basking perches, promoting public awareness and outreach and implementing participatory science and stewardship programmes. Future research on human–freshwater turtle interactions during inland water‐based recreation could explore the efficacy of conservation measures, potential interactions outside of regularly studied boating and fishing activities and recreation‐induced turtle habitat alterations. Also, future research could explore the human dimension side of human–turtle interactions, including perceptions and knowledge from water users on the interactions they experience, and their awareness and actions of pro‐environmental behaviours to protect turtles during water‐based recreation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".