The relative influence of geographic and environmental factors on rare plant translocation outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Conservation translocations are an established method for reducing the extinction risk of plant species through intentional movement within or outside the indigenous range. Unsuitable environmental conditions at translocation recipient sites and a lack of understanding of species–environment relationships are often identified as critical barriers to translocation success. However, previous syntheses have drawn these inferences from analyses of qualitative feedback rather than quantitative environmental data. In this study, we use a data set of 235 translocations conducted in the US to understand the influences of geographic and environmental factors on three metrics of translocation success: population persistence, next‐generation recruitment and next‐generation maturity. We use random forest models to quantify the relative importance of geographic and environmental factors that characterize dissimilarity between source and recipient locations, the position of recipient sites relative to species' ranges and niche metrics derived from these ranges. We also compare the importance of these variables with more conventional predictors (e.g. founder population size). Our results indicate that geographic and environmental variables can be as insightful as conventional variables for predicting plant translocation outcomes. The climate suitability of recipient sites, estimated using species distribution models, was the strongest relative predictor of whether a population persisted, with populations situated in more suitable climates displaying greater persistence. Next‐generation recruitment and maturity were best predicted by niche metrics; species in more biotically limiting environments, including tropical regions and soils with high relative nutrient retention, as well as species with the broadest precipitation niches, were the least likely to attain these next‐generation benchmarks. Synthesis and applications . Our study is one of the first to quantify the important role of spatial and climatic factors in rare plant translocation outcomes. We provide a novel geographic and environmental perspective on outcomes in plant translocations and demonstrate opportunities to improve translocation success not only by adhering to established best practice guidelines but also by integrating spatial modelling approaches into planning and management processes.
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) | 0.000 | 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".