MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404233306 · doi:10.1007/s10980-024-01993-y

From marginal croplands to natural habitats: A methodological framework for assessing the restoration potential to enhance wild-bee pollination in agricultural landscapes

2024· article· en· W4404233306 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Gabriela María Torchio, Jérôme Cimon-Morin, Poliana Mendes, Jean‐Olivier Goyette, Amanda M. Schwantes, Miguel Arias-Patino, Elena M. Bennett, Catherine Destrempes, Stéphanie Pellerin, Monique Poulin

Bibliographic record

VenueLandscape Ecology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsEspace pour la vieUniversity of TorontoUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisCentre de Géomatique du QuébecMcGill UniversityUniversité LavalUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaMinistère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'AlimentationUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLandscape ecologyHabitatNature ConservationPollinationAgricultureNatural (archaeology)EcologyGeographyEnvironmental resource managementAgroforestryBiologyEnvironmental planningEnvironmental sciencePollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context: Intensive agriculture increases crop yields, but harms biodiversity and associated ecosystem services such as pollination. To sustain wild-bee pollination in intensive agricultural landscapes, a minimum of (semi-) natural habitat is needed in the vicinity of crop fields. However, restoration of (semi-) natural habitat is a challenge, especially when most land is allocated to commodity production. Objectives: To evaluate the restoration potential of marginal lands to enhance pollination in intensive agricultural landscapes. Methods: We simulated restoration scenarios in marginal agricultural lands (abandoned and degraded fields, and field edges) in La Vallée-du-Richelieu (Quebec, Canada), aimed at enhancing pollination provision and increasing (semi-) natural habitat coverage by at least 20% within 1 km from crop fields, the estimated minimum amount required to sustain wild-bee populations. We then evaluated the extent to which restoration targets were reached in our scenarios. Results: More than half of the agricultural region studied remained with less than 20% (semi-) natural area coverage, and wild-bee pollination provision could not be ensured across the whole agricultural region after restoration. However, our results show that there is still an important potential for increasing natural habitat coverage by restoring marginal agricultural lands alone. Conclusion: Restoration of marginal lands has a key role to play in the transition towards multifunctionality of production landscapes but might not be sufficient to achieve goals such as those adopted at the COP15 (e.g., restoring 30% of degraded land). Our framework can assist landscape planners in evaluating the restoration potential of agricultural landscapes, as well as its limitations. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10980-024-01993-y.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLandscape EcologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207