Greater Sage Grouse on the Edge of Their Range: Leks and Surrounding Landscapes in the Dakotas
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sage grouse (Centrocercus spp.) have been declining throughout their range in the United States and Canada as well as in individual states and provinces. Sage grouse, including the combined range of both the greater sage grouse (C. urophasianus) and the Gunnison sage grouse (C. minimus), once occurred in 16 states and three Canadian provinces; now they only occur in 11 states and two Canadian provinces (Connelly and Braun 1997, Schroeder et al. 1999). Excluding states suggested as part of the Gunnison sage grouse range (Young et al. 2000), greater sage grouse range has declined from 13 states and three Canadian provinces to 11 states and two Canadian provinces (Schroeder et al. 1999). Excluding states suggested as part of the Gunnison sage grouse range (Young et al. 2000), greater sage grouse range has declined from 13 states and three Canadian provinces to 11 states and two Canadian provinces (Schroeder et al. 1999). Concerns are growing over the reasons for these declines. The habitat around active and historically active greater sage grouse leks in North Dakota and South Dakota was studied during 2001 and 2002 in an attempt to find reasons for desertion of once thriving leks and for apparent population declines. I collected information on current and historic (i.e., leks with 0-years) sage grouse lek counts and distributions in western North Dakota and South Dakota. A steady decline is evident when reviewing the entire recorded period of greater sage grouse surveys in North Dakota (1951-2002) and South Dakota (1972-2002). There is also apparent eastern edge abandonment of the active breeding range over the years. Land use patterns in these areas once occupied by greater sage grouse have likely changed and are now failing to meet their needs (Connelly and Braun 1997). I compared peripheral microhabitat and landscape characteristics to identify possible reasons for lek abandonment. For microhabitat data, I systematically selected 12 sample sites at equidistant points from each other within 1.5 km of the lek center. No differences (P > 0.10) were detected between sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) cover or sagebrush density around active leks versus that around historically active leks in North Dakota and South Dakota. Sagebrush density does appear to have a positive effect on greater sage grouse lek size in North Dakota and South Dakota. Landscape level data were recorded and assessed using satellite imagery. Comparisons were made of 1972-1976 and 1999-2000 percent tilled and non-tilled. These land use comparisons were made between current leks versus historically active leks, active leks versus random sites, and abandoned regions versus active regions. The 1999-2000 imagery illustrated that percent tilled ground, and thus fragmentation, was greater (P < 0.10) within abandoned areas than within active areas in North Dakota. However, 1972-1976 imagery revealed that this relationship has been static over the last 30 years. Thus, if the decline of sage grouse is the result of tilled ground infringements it had to occur prior to 1972. Sage grouse, a landscape species, may have been slow to show the effects of this land use change.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 it