Roads elicit negative movement and habitat-selection responses by wolverines (Gulo gulo luscus)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fine-scale behavior of wildlife when crossing roads and interacting with traffic is likely to mirror natural responses to predation risk including not responding, pausing, avoiding, or increasing speed during crossing. We generated coarse-scale behavioral predictions based on these expectations that could be assessed with GPS radiotelemetry. We evaluated our predictions using an integrated step-selection analysis of wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus) space use in relation to spatially and temporally dynamic vehicle traffic on industrial roads in northern Alberta. We compared support for alternative models of road avoidance, increased speed near roads, and road avoidance and increased speed near roads. We predicted that wolverines would avoid roads and increase their speed near roads and that these behaviors would increase with traffic volume. We found that vehicle traffic was relatively low (0–30 vehicles/12 h) but important for explaining wolverine space use. Top winter and summer models indicated that wolverines avoided and increased speed near roads. Wolverine movement, but not avoidance, increased with traffic volume. We suggest that movement is a fine-scaled response that is more responsive to vehicle traffic than habitat selection. We show that roads, regardless of traffic volume, reduce the quality of wolverine habitats and that higher-traffic roads might be most deleterious. We suggest that wildlife behavior near roads should be viewed as a continuum and that accurate modeling of behavior when near roads requires quantification of both movement and habitat selection. Mitigating the effects of roads on wolverines would require clustering roads, road closures, or access management.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".