MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The effects of artificial and natural barriers on the movement of small mammals in Banff National Park, Canada

2004· article· en· W2031282287 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Wayne Robert. McDonald, Colleen Cassady St. Clair

Bibliographic record

VenueOikos · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersParks CanadaAlberta Conservation Association
KeywordsHabitatPeromyscusNational parkEcologyDeer mouseGeographyGeneralist and specialist speciesBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Barriers that dissect continuous habitat, such as roads, initiate the process of habitat fragmentation and can filter or eliminate animal movement through otherwise pristine areas. A severe road barrier appears to exist in Banff National Park where the Trans‐Canada Highway (TCH) is known to impede the movement of some animals, but the effects of this barrier relative to natural barriers and continuous habitat have not been assessed. To compare animal movement in response to these three contexts, we translocated three species of murid rodents (meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus , deer mice, Peromyscus maniculatus , and red‐backed voles, Clethrionomys gapperi ) across the TCH (an artificial barrier), a forested strip in the median of the TCH (a natural barrier), in the adjacent highway verge (continuous grassy) and in nearby forest (continuous forested). We coated murids with fluorescent dye, released them at standardized distances, and followed the resulting trails to obtain detailed information on movement paths. Overall, individuals were 20% less successful crossing the TCH than natural (forested) barriers and 10% less successful crossing natural barriers than continuous habitat, but exhibited marked variation among species. Path tortuosity was negatively related to return success; more convoluted paths were associated with lower success across all treatments. Deer mice returned to their home‐ranges more often than the other two species, perhaps because of their generalist habitat preferences, nocturnal activities, or larger home ranges. In all treatments, the fractal dimensions of movement paths were very qualitatively similar to those observed for return success and tortuosity, indicating that the responses of these species were not influenced by spatial scale. Together, our results suggest that (a) murid species differ in the movement limitation imposed by both natural and artificial barriers, perhaps as a consequence of differences in habitat preferences and activity patterns, and (b) murid responses to a road barrier are only moderately different from responses to the natural barrier of a forest edge in the context of translocation experiments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.525
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations84
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOikosSame topicWildlife-Road Interactions and ConservationFrench-language works237,207