Black bear use of seismic lines in Northern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The development of hydrocarbon resources in northwestern Canada has resulted in a vast network of seismic lines. Seismic lines are a conservation concern because they are believed to alter the use of space by predators and ultimately change predator‐prey relationships. Such changes are believed to be a key factor influencing declines in boreal woodland caribou ( Rangifer tarandus caribou ). Using remote wildlife cameras, we measured the behavioral response of a known caribou predator, the black bear ( Ursus americanus ), to seismic lines at 2 spatial scales. At the line scale, we compared black bear use of lines that varied in width and vegetation recovery state to undisturbed forest interior locations. At a 5‐km 2 scale, we compared the probability of bear use across a continuum of seismic line density. At both spatial scales, we also tested for an interaction between bear use of seismic lines and use of upland and lowland forest types. Black bears used most types of seismic lines more frequently than undisturbed forest interior and upland forest more than lowland forest. We found no evidence of an interaction between lines and forest type, as the relative difference in seismic line versus forest interior use was the same in lowland and upland forest. At the 5‐km 2 scale, we found no evidence of increased use of lowland forest in areas with greater seismic line density. Thus, seismic lines did not appear to increase black bear use of lowland forest types per se. However, bears used seismic lines more than forest interiors, which might alter their ability to locate and capture caribou and other ungulate prey, thereby creating the potential for altered predator‐prey dynamics in landscapes with seismic lines. Bears do not appear to use seismic lines ≤2 m wide more often than the forest interior. We suggest that where new seismic lines are constructed, those seismic lines should be a maximum width of 2 m to reduce the potential for altered predator‐prey dynamics in areas being developed for oil and gas extraction. © 2014 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".