MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407983535 · doi:10.3389/fcosc.2025.1563034

Editorial: Reconciling nature conservation and sustainability of tropical ecosystems

2025· editorial· en· W4407983535 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
María Cristina Duarte, Jhonny Capichoni Massante, Salomão Bandeira, María M. Romeiras

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Conservation Science · 2025
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityEcosystemConservation biologyGeographyEnvironmental resource managementNatural resource economicsEcologyEnvironmental scienceEconomicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The tropics are home to some of the world's most biodiverse areas and a wide variety of ecosystems, including some of the most emblema c ones, such as the Brazilian Atlan c and Amazonian forests, the Serenge , the Borneo, and the Congo rainforests. They also host around two-thirds of earth's biodiversity (Sodhi et al., 2013) and many of the most endangered plant and animal species. Many local human popula ons also rely on the resources and services provided by these ecosystems: Fedele et al. (2021) es mate that about 1.2 billion people in the tropics (30% of the region's popula on) depend directly on the natural resources available locally to meet their basic needs.The importance of tropical biodiversity is demonstrated by the plant and animal resources it can provide, such as those used for human and animal food, for fuel and mber, as raw materials for countless uses, and species used in tradi onal medicine. Tropical ecosystems are also vital to local people, by suppor ng socioeconomic ac vi es such as livestock farming, fuelwood harves ng, tourism, or even by providing support to cultural and spiritual needs. However, some more destruc ve prac ces, such as deforesta on, land conversion to agriculture, or overexploita on, are unlikely to safeguard resource sustainability. Disputes can therefore be expected when conserva on conflicts with human needs, such as poverty reduc on or livelihood improvement (Minteer and Miller, 2011).Seeking compa bility between conserva on and development is a major and unavoidable challenge. Since the Conven on on Biological Diversity, many interna onal legisla ve ini a ves have reinforced the need to ensure that coexistence is achieved in a balanced way. The Kunming-Montreal Global Framework for Biodiversity, drawn up in 2022, refers (Target 4) to the need to adopt "sustainable management prac ces, and effec vely manage human-wildlife interac ons to minimize human-wildlife conflict for coexistence." These are essen al "to halt human induced ex nc on of known threatened species and (…) to maintain and restore the gene c diversity within and between popula ons (…)".In conserva on terms, the human-wildlife conflicts or, in general, the development-conserva on conflicts are one of the most difficult problems to solve (Dickman, 2010). Not only do they pose a significant threat to species, but they also affect human livelihoods, food security, resource sustainability, sustainable economic development, and social equity (IUCN, 2023; Redpath et al., 2013).The complexity of biodiversity-related conflicts, which o en involve a wide variety of stakeholders and a variety of factors, calls for the development of management strategies that are based on evidence of various kinds (Young et al., 2010). Human impacts on wild plants animals should be interpreted in the light of the 43 socio-economic and cultural contexts and Schraml, 2018), which requires close coordina on between 44 the social and natural sciences. 45The number of published scien fic ar cles associated with the keywords "conflicts" or "impacts" between 46 humans and wildlife increased significantly the last two decades (Figure 1), which may indicate the 47 growing concern about the topic and/or reflect a growing number of conflicts. Although the term "wildlife" 48 can be used for both flora and fauna, it is much more commonly used for fauna, so that many conflict 49 situa ons rela ng to plants might not have been iden fied (Figure 1a). When looking for the terms "over-50 exploita on" or "over-harves ng" or "deforesta on", the increase in total number of publica ons 51 similar but, as expected, those concerning flora dominate (Figure 1b). 52The Increasing conflicts between conserva on and human ac vi es seem inevitable (Redpath et al., 2013), and 83 conserva on and management prac ces should take into account the interdependence between people and 84 nature (the biocultural and people-centered conserva on, referred to by Hoffmann, 2022). Greater 85 coopera on with indigenous peoples, community groups and private ini a ves is essen al to the success of 86 biodiversity management and conserva on in the 21st century (Maxwell et al., 2020). 87 ("conflict" or "impact") and ("flora" or "plant" or "fauna" or "animal") -totaling 1239; and b) ("over-exploita on" or 143 "over-harves ng" or "deforesta on") and ("conflict" or "impact") and ("flora" or "plant" or "fauna" or "animal") -

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0200.025
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.015

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Conservation ScienceSame topicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207