Contrasted effects of human pressure on biodiversity in the UK: a multi‐taxonomic assessment using airborne environmental DNA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human activities have significantly modified habitats, resulting in a global biodiversity crisis. In this study, we leveraged the first national‐scale biodiversity survey based on airborne environmental DNA, comparing the effects of three human pressure indices increasing in complexity and scope – a binary urban–rural index, an index integrating land cover and pollutant concentrations as a proxy of human activity, and the composite human footprint index – across mammals, birds, insects, plants and fungi. While most taxa exhibited higher diversity in urban areas compared to rural ones, we uncovered more complex patterns using the landscape‐pollution and human footprint indices, including dual diversity maxima at both high and moderate levels of human pressure. We also show an effect of human pressure on community composition even when local species richness remained stable: regardless of the human pressure index, anthropogenic sites were mostly characterized by synanthropic and invasive species. Overall, our results underscore the complex interactions among anthropogenic pressures, taxon diversity and community composition, demonstrating the value of multi‐taxon analyses and multiple indices to better understand biodiversity patterns at large scales.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".