MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Non‐optimal animal movement in human‐altered landscapes

2007· article· en· W2114708598 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFunctional Ecology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiological dispersalHabitatEcologyLandscape connectivityMovement (music)PopulationBiologyHabitat destructionEphemeral key

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary I synthesize the understanding of the relationship between landscape structure and animal movement in human‐modified landscapes. The variety of landscape structures is first classified into four categories: continuous habitat, patchy habitat with high‐quality matrix, patchy habitat with low‐quality matrix, and patchy, ephemeral habitat. Using this simplification I group the range of evolved movement parameters into four categories or movement types. I then discuss how these movement types interact with current human‐caused landscape changes, and how this often results in non‐optimal movement. From this synthesis I develop a hypothesis that predicts the relative importance of the different population‐level consequences of these non‐optimal movements, for the four movement types. Populations of species that have inhabited landscapes with high habitat cover or patchy landscapes with low‐risk matrix should have evolved low boundary responses and moderate to high movement probabilities. These species are predicted to be highly susceptible to increased movement mortality resulting from habitat loss and reduced matrix quality. In contrast, populations of species that evolved in patchy landscapes with high‐risk matrix or dynamic patchy landscapes are predicted to be highly susceptible to decreased immigration and colonization success, due to the increasing patch isolation that results from habitat loss. Finally, I discuss three implications of this synthesis: (i) ‘least cost path’ analysis should not be used for land management decisions without data on actual movement paths and movement risks in the landscape; (ii) ‘dispersal ability’ is not simply an attribute of a species, but varies strongly with landscape structure such that the relative rankings of species’ dispersal abilities can change following landscape alteration; and (iii) the assumption that more mobile species are more resilient to human‐caused landscape change is not generally true, but depends on the structure of the landscape where the species evolved.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

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)0.0110.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.211 · 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