Probability of lek collapse is lower inside sage-grouse Core Areas: Effectiveness of conservation policy for a landscape species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) occupy sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) habitats in 11 western states and 2 Canadian provinces. In September 2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced the listing status for sage-grouse had changed from warranted but precluded to not warranted. The primary reason cited for this change of status was that the enactment of new regulatory mechanisms was sufficient to protect sage-grouse populations. One such plan is the 2008, Wyoming Sage Grouse Executive Order (SGEO), enacted by Governor Freudenthal. The SGEO identifies "Core Areas" that are to be protected by keeping them relatively free from further energy development and limiting other forms of anthropogenic disturbances near active sage-grouse leks. Using the Wyoming Game and Fish Department's sage-grouse lek count database and the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission database of oil and gas well locations, we investigated the effectiveness of Wyoming's Core Areas, specifically: 1) how well Core Areas encompass the distribution of sage-grouse in Wyoming, 2) whether Core Area leks have a reduced probability of lek collapse, and 3) what, if any, edge effects intensification of oil and gas development adjacent to Core Areas may be having on Core Area populations. Core Areas contained 77% of male sage-grouse attending leks and 64% of active leks. Using Bayesian binomial probability analysis, we found an average 10.9% probability of lek collapse in Core Areas and an average 20.4% probability of lek collapse outside Core Areas. Using linear regression, we found development density outside Core Areas was related to the probability of lek collapse inside Core Areas. Specifically, probability of collapse among leks >4.83 km from inside Core Area boundaries was significantly related to well density within 1.61 km (1-mi) and 4.83 km (3-mi) outside of Core Area boundaries. Collectively, these data suggest that the Wyoming Core Area Strategy has benefited sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat conservation; however, additional guidelines limiting development densities adjacent to Core Areas may be necessary to effectively protect Core Area populations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".