Evaluating responses by pronghorn to fence modifications across the Northern Great Plains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Pronghorn ( Antilocapra americana ) is an endemic North American ungulate susceptible to negative effects of fences, especially given the vast amount of barbed‐wire fencing currently on the landscape. Despite multiple nongovernmental organizations, and state and provincial wildlife agencies publishing guidelines for creating wildlife‐friendly fencing, there are no published studies that evaluate and compare evidence of the effectiveness of endorsed practices. We analyzed pronghorn crossing success in Alberta, Canada, and Montana, USA, between 2012 and 2016 in response to fence‐modification treatments to understand 1) differences between bottom wire height at selected versus available fence sites, 2) the change in crossing rates before and after fence modification treatments, 3) the effect of a suite of fence, environmental, and demographic characteristics on group crossing success, and 4) the time lag until pronghorn became habituated to different fence modifications after initiation of treatments. Use of either smooth wire or clips with a bottom wire height of approximately 46 cm were most effective at allowing passage by pronghorn, while the commonly proposed goat‐bar was ineffective and created a negative behavioral response by pronghorn. Though smooth wire and clips were effective at allowing passage, we observed a time lag as pronghorn switched use from their strong fidelity at known‐crossing sites to using modified sites. Pronghorn‐group crossing success was greatest during summer, for all‐male groups, and increased with larger group sizes. We advocate not using goat‐bars as modifications to fences, and instead, recommend using smooth wire and clips at a minimum bottom‐wire height of 46 cm to allow movement by pronghorn. Our study provides guidance for wildlife‐friendly fencing techniques to wildlife managers and private landholders as a means to improve permeability for pronghorn and additionally, can be used as a model to evaluate fence modifications for pronghorn and other target species that may be sensitive to fence interactions. © 2018 The Authors. Wildlife Society Bulletin Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".