Creating landscape‐appropriate habitat restoration strategies: success of a novel nesting habitat design for imperiled freshwater turtles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Turtle nesting habitat can be created as a restoration strategy to increase habitat availability or provide suitable habitat away from threats. Traditional nest habitat restoration consists of creating nesting mounds using a mix of sand and gravel. However, nesting mounds do not resemble natural turtle nesting habitat in a rock barren landscape where turtles nest in crevices and cracks in the bedrock. Therefore, our objective was to design and evaluate the success of a landscape‐appropriate design for turtle nesting habitat in a rock barren landscape. To evaluate success of the nest habitat design, we assessed the (1) survival of transplanted moss and lichen cover on created nest sites, (2) ecohydrological and physical conditions at created and natural sites, and (3) turtle egg hatching success at created and natural sites using a split‐clutch experiment. We found no difference in productivity between lichen transplants and natural sites, indicating that intact lichen transplants were successful. Moss transplant success was more variable due to moisture stress because transplants were conducted during dry conditions. In general, created nest habitat tended to have a more stable thermal and moisture regime compared to natural sites. When accounting for maternal effects, the odds of an egg hatching successfully was 6.6 times higher in a created site than a natural site. Overall, the success of our nest habitat design in the first few years suggests that this landscape‐appropriate design will be a useful restoration strategy for increasing turtle nesting habitat in rock barren landscapes.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".