Winter habitat use of greater sage‐grouse relative to activity levels at natural gas well pads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Energy development in western North America has been shown to negatively influence greater sage‐grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ) populations. No effective methods of reducing on‐site impacts of energy development to greater sage‐grouse are known. We investigated greater sage‐grouse use of wintering habitats relative to distances to infrastructure, densities of infrastructure, and activity levels associated with infrastructure of a natural gas field over 5 years in southwestern Wyoming. We compared year‐long drilling locations, locations of conventional well pads, locations of well pads with off‐site condensate and produced water gathering systems (LGS), and plowed main haul roads to the number of and time associated with greater sage‐grouse visits to continually monitored, distinct patches of habitat. Liquid gathering systems reduced human activity levels at producing well pads approximately 53%. We used data loggers to monitor distinct patches of habitat throughout the 2005–2006 to 2009–2010 winters and used the number of times and the amount of time individuals from a sample of greater sage‐grouse ( n = 236) were detected at data logger stations to model frequency and time of occurrence as functions of anthropogenic and habitat variables. Greater sage‐grouse avoided suitable winter habitats in areas with high well pad densities regardless of differences in activity levels associated with well pads. Our results further suggested that greater sage‐grouse avoidance of conventional well pads was stronger than LGS well pads. We found relatively consistent positive relationships between distance to infrastructure with high levels of human activity and average hours greater sage‐grouse spent in an area. Greater sage‐grouse avoidance of natural gas field infrastructure during the winter may be explained mechanistically as movements of individuals from areas close to high levels of activity—movements that may occur at the time human activity is experienced—followed by a lack of movement back into these areas. Minimizing the densities of well pads may reduce on‐site impacts of energy development on wintering greater sage‐grouse. Our study, additionally, indicated that reducing anthropogenic activity levels associated with energy developments may reduce the temporal scale of indirect greater sage‐grouse winter habitat loss. © 2015 The Wildlife Society.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".