MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7073612798

The comparative biodiversity of seven globally important wetlands: a synthesis

2006· article· en· W7073612798 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCGSPace A Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Ecosystems and Biodiversity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWetlandBiodiversityHabitatSpecies diversityGlobal biodiversityExtinction (optical mineralogy)EndemismHabitat destructionSpecies richness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The species diversity data of seven globally important wetlands (Canadian peatlands, Florida Everglades, Pantanal, Okavango Delta, Sundarban, Tonle Sap, and Kakadu National Park) were compared. The available data for most groups of lower plants and animals are insufficient for a comparative analysis. Data on vertebrates and higher plants are more complete and show high species diversity. The large habitat diversity allows the coexistence of amphibious species with many immigrants from connected deepwater and terrestrial habitats. Several of these immigrant species find an important permanent refuge in the wetlands; some use the wetlands as periodic habitats. All wetlands are important habitats for long-distance migratory bird species. The species composition reflects the biogeography of the respective regions, e.g. the high diversity of large ungulates characteristic for Africa is also found in the Okavango Delta in Botswana, and the high fish species diversity typical for South America is also reflected in the Pantanal in Brazil. The number of endemic species in most wetlands is low, except in the Everglades. The low numbers are explained to some extent by the dramatically changing paleo-climatic conditions that increased extinction rates, but also by the connection with large river systems that act as migratory and transport routes for species from large catchment areas and hinder the genetic isolation of wetland populations. The high number of endemic species in the Everglades is explained in part by its isolation on a peninsula. The relatively low nutrient status of most wetlands does not negatively affect species diversity and often leads to high animal densities. Large populations of endangered or rare species in all wetlands contribute to the great value of these areas for biodiversity protection. All wetlands are subjected to an increasing degree to human pressure through, e.g. water abstraction, changes in the natural flood regime, land reclamation, pollution, over-utilization of natural resources, and poaching. High habitat diversity and a pronounced natural disturbance regime make some of the wetlands vulnerable to invasion by exotic species, as shown for the Everglades. All studied wetlands are at least in part protected by national and international conventions. This provides perspectives for long-term protection only to a limited extent because of major environmental changes in their surroundings. Further strong efforts are required to match protection and sustainable use of the wetlands proper with management activities in their catchments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCGSPace A Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research)Same topicAquatic Ecosystems and BiodiversityFrench-language works237,207