Under what conditions do fences reduce the effects of transportation infrastructure on population persistence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transportation infrastructure impedes the movement of animals, enhances their mortality due to collisions with vehicles, and decreases habitat size. We study the first two effects, using a spatially explicit individual-based model of population dynamics. We discuss the suitability of fences. Fences can either enhance or reduce survival probability, depending on the degree of road avoidance and the proportion of animals killed, of those that try to cross the road. There is a lower value of traffic mortality below which a fence is always harmful and an upper value of traffic mortality above which a fence is always beneficial. Between these two values the suitability of fences depends on the degree of road avoidance. The lower the degree of road avoidance and the higher the amount of traffic on the road, the more likely it will be that fences are beneficial. We recommend the use of fences when traffic is so high that animals never, or almost never, succeed in their attempts to cross the road, or the population of the species of concern is declining and traffic mortality is known to contribute to the decline. We discourage the use of fences when population size is stable or increasing or if the animals need to access resources on both sides of the road, unless fences are used in combination with wildlife crossing structures.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".