Influence of high Andean grasslands on landslide reduction in Peru
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Agricultural and urban expansion has caused considerable degradation of ecosystems. In the case of Peruvian high Andean grasslands, it was reported that between 2000 and 2009, this ecosystem was reduced by 7%. The limited or no protection they receive is partly due to the fact that the benefits of ecosystem services are not widely known. This research aims to establish and predict the influence of high Andean grasslands on the annual occurrence of landslides. To do so, we identified occurrences of landslides, falls, huaycos, avalanches, and alluviums in high Andean grasslands. We also examined urban areas and agricultural zones of Peru for the period from 2003 to 2016. Subsequently, we extracted data on precipitation, temperature, slopes, soil types, and geographical variables. This data was used to train a machine learning model. The results show that 96% of landslides occurred in human-intervened areas, and only 4% in high Andean grasslands. Precipitation and slope thresholds for landslide occurrence are higher in high Andean grasslands compared to agricultural and urban areas. The best-performing machine learning models were linear regression, Gaussian processes, random forest, and support vector machine. They had coefficients of determination of R² = 0.80, 0.80, 0.66, and 0.64, respectively. Predictions show that if agricultural or urban areas are established in wet or dry puna grasslands, the average number of occurrences multiplies. The multiplier factors are 2.1 and 7.08, the number of deaths by 2.8 and 10.49, the number of houses destroyed by 2.4 and 7.51, and the number of roads destroyed by 2.2 and 7.37, respectively. The study demonstrates that conserving high Andean grasslands significantly reduces landslides compared to urban or agricultural areas.
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) | 0.001 | 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".