Sharing the same slope: Behavioral responses of a threatened mesocarnivore to motorized and nonmotorized winter recreation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Winter recreation is a widely popular activity and is expected to increase due to changes in recreation technology and human population growth. Wildlife are frequently negatively impacted by winter recreation, however, through displacement from habitat, alteration of activity patterns, or changes in movement behavior. We studied impacts of dispersed and developed winter recreation on Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) at their southwestern range periphery in Colorado,USA. We usedGPScollars to track movements of 18 adult lynx over 4 years, coupled withGPSdevices that logged 2,839 unique recreation tracks to provide a detailed spatial estimate of recreation intensity. We assessed changes in lynx spatial and temporal patterns in response to motorized and nonmotorized recreation, as well as differences in movement rate and path tortuosity. We found that lynx decreased their movement rate in areas with high‐intensity back‐country skiing and snowmobiling, and adjusted their temporal patterns so that they were more active at night in areas with high‐intensity recreation. We did not find consistent evidence of spatial avoidance of recreation: lynx exhibited some avoidance of areas with motorized recreation, but selected areas in close proximity to nonmotorized recreation trails. Lynx appeared to avoid high‐intensity developed ski resorts, however, especially when recreation was most intense. We conclude that lynx in our study areas did not exhibit strong negative responses to dispersed recreation, but instead altered their behavior and temporal patterns in a nuanced response to recreation, perhaps to decrease direct interactions with recreationists. However, based on observed avoidance of developed recreation, there may be a threshold of human disturbance above which lynx cannot coexist with winter recreation.
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 | 0.001 | 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".