A rocky solution: evaluating the use of common construction materials as road-effect mitigation for turtle communities in a rock barren landscape
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Roads are pervasive linear features that bisect landscapes, altering how female turtles use and \nmove between critical habitats during nesting migrations. While turtle population viability \ndepends on the survivorship of reproductive females, few cost-effective mitigation strategies \ndirectly address their vulnerability to roads. The objective of my study was to evaluate a new \ncost-effective mitigation strategy that used common construction materials to reduce road threats \nfor turtle communities in eastern Georgian Bay, Ontario. The mitigation design aimed to deter \nfemales from nesting in roadside habitats by replacing ~ 300 m of exposed gravel at 5 wetland \ncrossings with rock rip-rap and paved road shoulders (using tar-and-chip), while the rest of the \nroad shoulders remained unchanged. The success of the mitigation strategy was assessed by \nwhether it successfully prevented females from using the road as nesting habitat. First, I used a \nBefore-During-After comparison of nesting observations and nest hot spots on the road. I found \na 15% decrease in the number of females nesting at Mitigated sites in the After period; however, \nfemales continued to nest in the nearest available Unmitigated roadside habitat, including in \nsemi-compact tar-and-chip road shoulders at Mitigated sites. In addition, nesting hot spots \nremained at Mitigated sites in the After period. Second, I investigated the availability and \nsuitability of natural nesting habitats in the surrounding rock barren landscape relative to nesting \nhabitats used by female turtles on road shoulders. I conducted systematic habitat surveys (in \n10800 1m x 1m plots) to quantify the availability of suitable nesting habitats on open rock \nbarrens based on soil depth and canopy openness requirements for Species at Risk (SAR) turtles. \nI found road shoulders met nesting habitat requirements for three local turtle species, whereas \nonly 1% of rock barrens in the 231-ha study area were suitable for turtle nesting. Overall, I found \nthe availability of suitable nesting habitats was limited across the natural landscape, which may \ncontribute to females’ selection of roadside nesting habitats. My findings suggest that the \nmitigation strategy was unsuccessful at deterring female turtles from nesting on roads and should \nnot be applied without further research, especially in areas where natural nesting habitat may be \nlimited. I identified additional recovery actions, such as mortality mitigation (i.e., fenceunderpass mitigation) and nesting habitat restoration, that may be required to reduce road effects \nfor the turtle community. Overall, my project contributes to studies evaluating road-effect \nmitigation and highlights several important findings that can be incorporated into Best \nManagement Practices for turtles during road development.
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 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».