MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411891327 · doi:10.1007/s10980-025-02121-0

Using old fields for new purposes: ecosystem service outcomes of restoring marginal agricultural land to forests

2025· article· en· W4411891327 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Catherine Destrempes, Jesse T. Rieb, John R. Clark, Gabriela María Torchio, Brian E. Robinson, Monique Poulin, Elena M. Bennett

Bibliographic record

VenueLandscape Ecology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsMinistère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'AlimentationMcGill University
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesJewish Community Foundation of MontrealNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsEcosystem servicesLandscape ecologyAgricultureRestoration ecologyEnvironmental resource managementContext (archaeology)Agricultural landAgricultural productivityLand useLand degradationEnvironmental scienceGeographyEcosystemEcologyAgroforestryHabitatBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context: Human activities, particularly intensive agriculture, have caused significant environmental degradation, reduced ecosystem diversity, and increased vulnerability to global change. Recent international policies, such as the Global Biodiversity Framework's 30 × 30 target, advocate for nature-based solutions (NbS) such as ecological restoration to address these impacts. In agricultural landscapes, however, there are concerns that restoration may impact food production. Objectives: We investigated how forest restoration, as an NbS, changes the supply of ecosystem services (ES), including potential trade offs with agricultural output. Using the Montérégie region of Québec (southeastern Canada) as a case study, we assessed the influence of restoration extent, spatial configuration, and the original agricultural site conditions on the ES outcomes. Methods: We modeled ES outcomes for seven ES (crop production, maple syrup production, deer hunting, water quality, carbon storage, pollination, and outdoor recreation) under nine scenarios, which varied by total amount of the landscape restored (3.3%, 10.8%, 30%) and initial conditions of the agricultural fields restored (randomly selected, degraded agricultural field, or abandoned agricultural field). Results: Our findings indicate that increasing the amount of land restored enhances provision of most ES, though improvement varied by service. The initial condition of restored sites minimally influences ES outcomes. However, the spatial pattern of restoration plays a significant role in determining ES delivery, as restored sites enhance most ES through spillover effects up to 500 m. Conclusion: This study underscores the potential for combining landscape ecology approaches and ES tools to forecast NbS outcomes and inform landscape planning. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10980-025-02121-0.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.552
Threshold uncertainty score0.902

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLandscape EcologySame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207