Winter recreation and Canada lynx: reducing conflict through niche partitioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Outdoor recreationists are important advocates for wildlife on public lands. However, balancing potential impacts associated with increased human disturbance with the conservation of sensitive species is a central issue facing ecologists and land managers alike, especially for dispersed winter recreation due to its disproportionate impact to wildlife. We studied how dispersed winter recreation (outside developed ski areas) impacted a reintroduced meso‐carnivore, Canada lynx ( Lynx canadensis ), at the southern periphery of the species’ range in the southern Rocky Mountains. On a voluntary basis, we distributed global positioning system (GPS) units to winter recreationists and documented 2143 spatial movement tracks of recreationists engaged in motorized and nonmotorized winter sports for a total cumulative distance of 56,000 km from 2010 to 2013. We also deployed GPS radio collars on adult Canada lynx that were resident in the mountainous topography that attracted high levels of dispersed winter recreation. We documented that resource‐selection models (RSFs) for Canada lynx were significantly improved when selection patterns of winter recreationists were included in best‐performing models. Canada lynx and winter recreationists partitioned environmental gradients in ways that reduced the potential for recreation‐related disturbance. Although the inclusion of recreation improved the RSF model for Canada lynx, environmental covariates explained most variation in resource use. The environmental gradients that most separated areas selected by Canada lynx from those used by recreationists were forest canopy closure, road density, and slope. Canada lynx also exhibited a functional response of increased avoidance of areas selected by motorized winter recreationists (snowmobiling off‐trail, hybrid snowmobile) compared with either no functional response (hybrid ski) or selection for (backcountry skiing) areas suitable for nonmotorized winter recreation. We conclude with a discussion of implications associated with providing winter recreation balanced with the conservation of Canada lynx.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".