MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2523109915 · doi:10.1002/jwmg.21147

Pronghorn resource selection and habitat fragmentation in North Dakota

2016· article· en· W2523109915 on OpenAlexaff
Katherine S. Christie, William F. Jensen, Mark S. Boyce

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHabitatGeographyWildlifeNormalized Difference Vegetation IndexWetlandEcologyVegetation (pathology)Environmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Pronghorn ( Antilocapra americana ) in North Dakota have experienced habitat fragmentation due to agricultural practices, roads, and oil development. We analyzed patterns of female pronghorn habitat selection in 2006 and 2014, years with contrasting pronghorn density and oil production in western North Dakota. We quantified resource selection and fawn:female ratios relative to proximity to active wells, road density, land cover, development, normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), and agricultural practices. We also assessed patterns of well placement relative to the same environmental variables. Pronghorn selected sagebrush and areas with low NDVI but avoided developed areas, roads, forests, and wetlands. Pronghorn selected areas close to oil and gas wells because wells were located in high‐value habitats (e.g., native sagebrush‐steppe ecosystems selected by pronghorn). For the majority of variables tested, selection was stronger when pronghorn density was low, consistent with current resource selection theory. Although females selected relatively open habitats, fawn:female ratios within areas selected by females were positively correlated with NDVI. Our results demonstrate that pronghorn avoid human development and roads but not oil and gas wells. Although wells are not actively avoided by pronghorn, their placement in high‐value habitat for this species leads to significant habitat fragmentation. In light of these results, we recommend efforts to conserve pronghorn habitat such as constructing wells away from sagebrush, using existing roads to service newly constructed wells, and re‐vegetating well pads with sagebrush plantings once they are no longer in use. © 2016 The Wildlife Society.

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 score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations34
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207