MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396841174 · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2024.110611

Restoring ecological function: Interactions between vertebrates and latrines in a reintroduced population of Rhinoceros unicornis

2024· article· en· W4396841174 on OpenAlexaff
Balram Awasthi, Kim R. McConkey, Sasith Tharanga Aluthwattha, Cheng Chen, Jin Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueBiological Conservation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhinocerosEcologyPopulationBiologyGeographyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reintroduction is a highly effective strategy for rebuilding wildlife populations and restoring their ecosystem functions, but impacts on function are poorly documented. We addressed this gap by comparing the species richness and visit rate of mammals and birds that interact with rhino ( Rhinoceros unicornis ) latrines at two locations in Nepal: Chitwan National Park, with a stable rhino population, and Shuklaphanta National Park, where a rhino reintroduction program was conducted from 2003 to 2018. Camera-traps were used to monitor visitors to 30 latrines in both parks from 2020 to 2021 (669 camera-trap days). The reintroduction of rhinos to Shuklaphanta National Park has played a crucial role in restoring an important resource for other mammal and bird species. Despite a large difference in rhino abundance, and differences in the size, quality and some of the nutritional contents of latrines between sites, there were no significant differences in species richness of latrine visitors and in the frequency of most behaviours at the latrines. Visit rates of animals were higher at the reintroduction site, confirming latrines to be important, limited resources. Overall, 4 mammal and 4 bird species used the latrines to consume the dung, or insects and plants growing on and around the dung; a further two mammal species interacted only indirectly with the latrines. These findings provide evidence that even at low population densities, rhino reintroduction can successfully restore an important ecological function and provide vital resources for other species. Our study supports the rewilding of large-bodied animals to mitigate ecosystem deterioration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiological ConservationSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207