Mismatch Between Global Importance of Peatlands and the Extent of Their Protection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Global peatlands store more carbon than all the world's forests biomass on just 3% of the planet's land surface. Failure to address mounting threats to peatland ecosystems will jeopardize critical climate targets and exacerbate biodiversity loss. Our analysis reveals that 17% of peatlands are protected globally—substantially less than many other high‐value ecosystems. Just 11% percent of boreal and 27% of temperate and tropical peatlands are protected, while Indigenous peoples' lands encompass at least another one‐quarter of peatlands globally. Peatlands in protected areas and Indigenous peoples' lands generally face lower human pressure than outside those areas. Yet, almost half of temperate and tropical peatlands in protected areas still experience medium to high human pressure. Country submissions of Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement and National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans under the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework could help catalyze actions and secure funding for peatland conservation, including support for the Indigenous stewardship that is critical to protect many of the world's highest priority peatland 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".