Large Mammal Movement: Differences in Primary and Branch Logging Road Use in Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
There is an expansive network of roads in Algonquin Provincial Park (APP) to \nfacilitate forestry resource extraction. This leaves a research need for examining how the \nlogging road network in APP affects the large mammals, and what local-level and \nlandscape-level variables influence that use. Local-level data was collected directly at \nobservation points, and landscape-level data was produced from ArcGIS for 40km2, \n80km2, and 130km2 buffer areas. The objective of my study was to look at the use of \nprimary and branch logging roads by five large mammal species in APP, and determine if \nlandscape-level variables had an influence on the level of movement and utilization. The \nfive species included moose, white-tailed deer, American black bear, eastern wolf and \ncoyote. My null hypothesis (H0) states that there will be no difference in large mammal \nuse between the primary and branch logging roads within APP and that local- and \nlandscape-level variables will have no influence on them; my alternative hypothesis (H1) \nstates that there will be less large mammal activity on the primary logging roads, more \nlarge mammal movement on the branch logging roads and local- and landscape-level \nvariables will influence this use. Tracking was done by vehicle on six transects across \nthe park for three repeated surveys where species identification and local-level variables \nwere recorded. Landscape-level variables were acquired through GIS analysis in the lab. \nBased on the results from the local-level data, branch and primary logging road use \ndiffered in composition, though no significance was found between the use by large \nmammals for these two types of road. Through generalized linear models, specific \ncombinations of landscape-level variables did influence large mammal movement on the \nprimary and branch logging roads within three habitat range scales (130km2, 80km2, and \n40km2). The most significance was seen at the buffer of 40km2 on the branch logging \nroads, with the variables road density (p < 0.01), percent forest cover (p = 0.04) and \ntopographic ruggedness (p < 0.01) all having a strong impact on large mammal \nmovement. The only significant findings for primary logging roads were also at the \n40km2 scale with percent forest cover (p = 0.03) and percent water cover (p = 0.02) \nhaving an impact on large mammal movement. Overall, the landscape variables had \ngreater influence on branch logging roads that may be explained by the quality of the \nsurrounding habitat, as well as greater influence at smaller buffer scales. Further research \nand monitoring of the large mammals in APP is recommended to expand on this \npreliminary study. Greater understanding of the local- and landscape-level variables at \ndiffering habitat ranges will assist in understanding these large mammal movements and \nprovide data to base logging road management on. As large mammals are wide-ranging \nspecies, my study informs APP that their logging road network does not seem to hinder \nthe movements of this group of animals. Overall, the large mammals in APP did not \nhave any significant difference in their use of primary and branch logging roads of APP. \nFurther research has the potential to give greater understanding of the impacts of the \nlogging road network on the five large mammal species studied in APP. There is also the \npotential for useful management strategies to emerge for large mammals in this park, and \nhow to incorporate human activities within their habitat while maintaining sustainable \npopulations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».