Spatiotemporal railway use by grizzly bears in Canada's Rocky Mountains
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT Railway networks contribute to the direct mortality of wildlife through collisions with trains, which can threaten vulnerable wildlife populations even in protected areas, including grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos ) in Banff and Yoho National Parks, Canada. Mitigation to reduce bear‐train collisions requires information about how grizzly bears use the railway spatially and temporally and how particular types of use might increase collision vulnerability. We used data from 27 grizzly bears fitted with global positioning system (GPS) collars between 2000 and 2016 to relate railway use by bears via resource selection functions to variables that described land cover, human use, and topography. We used the same suite of explanatory variables to distinguish pairs of 4 types of steps, in which 3 successive GPS points (with 2‐hr fix rates) included ≥1 within 30 m of the rail (hereafter on) and 2 others that defined locations where bears effectively entered the railway (first fix off rail, next 2 on), crossed it (only the middle fix on the rail), continued along the railway (all 3 fixes on), or exited the railway corridor (first 2 on, last off). We compared both sites of higher use and each of these 4 step types to the relative frequency of bear‐train collisions, predicting a positive correlation for continue step types. Relative to available locations, bears were more likely to use the railway close to railroad sidings (sections of twinned track where trains sometimes stop), at intermediate distances from human‐use features (e.g., town sites, highways, trails), in areas with lower values of the compound topographic index (a proxy for wetness; within 500 m), and within 90 m of rugged terrain. Seasonally, bears made greater use of the railway in spring and fall. Among 1,515 sequences of 3 steps, crossing locations comprised >50% and were most distinct from continue locations (about 20%), which occurred in areas with more rugged terrain (within 300 m), closer to railway sidings, in spring and fall, and with steps that were 60% shorter. Contrary to our prediction, past reports of bear‐train collisions were negatively correlated with continue locations and unrelated to overall use or any other movement type. Our results suggest that railway use by bears increased where it provided increased forage or easier travel, particularly in spring and fall, but more work will be needed to determine the mechanistic basis of bear‐train collisions. Meanwhile, mitigation efforts such as habitat alteration or warning systems might target locations where past strikes are concentrated for grizzly bears or other sensitive populations. © 2019 The Wildlife Society.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».