Protected area coverage of the full annual cycle of migratory butterflies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective conservation of migratory species relies on habitat protection throughout their annual cycle. Although protected areas (PAs) play a central role in conservation, their effectiveness at conserving habitats across the annual cycle of migratory species has rarely been assessed. We developed seasonal ecological niche models for 418 migratory butterfly species across their global distribution to assess whether they were adequately represented in the PAs across their full annual cycle. PA coverage was inadequate in at least one season for 84% of migratory butterflies, adequate for only 17% of species in one season, and inadequate for 45% of species in all seasons. There was marked geographic variation in PA coverage: 77% of species met representation targets in Sri Lanka, for example, but only 32% met targets in Italy. Our results suggest that coordinated efforts across multiple countries will be needed to develop international networks of PAs that cover the full annual cycle of migratory insects and that conservation measures, in addition to the establishment and maintenance of PAs, are likely to be needed to effectively conserve these species.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 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".