MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Do small mammals avoid roads because of the traffic?

2007· article· en· W2142288624 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Ecology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPeromyscusWildlifeHabitatLimitingEcologyPopulationEnvironmental scienceGeographyBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Roads can act as barriers to animal movement, which may reduce population persistence by reducing recolonization of empty habitats and limiting immigration. Appropriate mitigation of this barrier effect (e.g. seasonal road closures, location and design of wildlife over‐ or underpasses) depends upon whether the animals avoid the road itself or the traffic on the road. Empirical studies of road avoidance to date do not generally differentiate between these. We conducted short‐ and long‐distance translocations and trapping studies of white‐footed mice ( Peromyscus leucopus ) and eastern chipmunks ( Tamias striatus ) near two‐lane paved roads, which differed widely in traffic amount, from 47 to 15 433 vehicles per day. In the trapping study (13 sites) only five animals moved across a road, in comparison to 36 animals that moved the same distance without an intervening road ( P < 0·0001). In the short‐distance translocations (15 sites), 51% of the small mammals that were translocated across roads returned, in comparison to a return rate of 77% of animals that were translocated a similar distance with no intervening road ( P = 0·009). In the long‐distance translocation study (24 sites) we found that each intervening road reduced the probability of successful return by about 50%. We found no significant effects of traffic amount on return rates in either the short‐distance or the long‐distance translocations studies. Small mammal densities were not lower near roads and we found no evidence for a decrease in density near roads with increasing traffic amount. Synthesis and applications. Our results suggest that small mammals avoid the road itself, and not emissions such as noise from the traffic on the roads. Our results imply that the barrier effect of roads on these species cannot be mitigated by measures aimed at reducing traffic amount; other measures such as wildlife passages would be needed.

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)0.001
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 score0.491
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.221
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