MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2917734383 · doi:10.7717/peerj.6504

Effects of narrow linear clearings on movement and habitat use in a boreal forest mammal community during winter

2019· article· en· W2917734383 on OpenAlexaff
Colin Pattison, Carla P. Catterall

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsSAIT Polytechnic
FundersGriffith University
KeywordsTransectHerbivorePredationEcologyTaigaHabitatMammalWildlifeGeographyHabitat fragmentationBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Linear clearings for human activities cause internal fragmentation of otherwise intact native forest, with many potential impacts on wildlife. Across a boreal forest region of some 4,000 km 2 , we investigated how movements and habitat use of ecologically different mammal species are affected by narrow (about eight m) seismic line (SL) clearings associated with fossil fuel extraction, which form extensive networks many kilometers long. We conducted nine repeat snow track surveys during three winters at 14 pairs of one-kilometer transects, each comprising one transect along the SL and a second running perpendicular into adjacent forest. Data for 13 individually-analyzed mammal taxa (species or sets of closely related species) and five mammal groups, categorized based on body size-diet combinations, showed that movements across transects were either unaffected by SL clearings (relative to continuous forest) or restricted only slightly. However, these clearings were favored for linear travel by most species and body size-diet groups (excepting small mammals). The strength of this preference varied in a manner consistent with species’ differing needs to move long distances (associated with their energetic requirements): large predators > large herbivores > mid-sized predators > mid-sized herbivores > small mammals. In terms of overall habitat use, large-bodied predators (e.g., wolves and coyotes) strongly selected SL clearings over forest, medium-sized predators (e.g., mustelids) and medium-sized herbivores (e.g., hares and squirrels) preferred forest, and neither large herbivores nor small mammals had a clear habitat preference. Consequently, there was a net shift in both species and trophic composition within the SL, in favor of large predators and away from medium-sized predators and herbivores. Given the high regional SL density (1.9 km/km 2 ) such shifts are likely to have complex ecological consequences, of currently unknown magnitude.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeerJSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207