Evaluating Responses by Sympatric Ungulates to Fence Modifications Across the Northern Great Plains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Across North America, incentive programs have assisted landholders with the construction of fences, often considered “wildlife friendly,” to assist in grazing management, which has resulted in a proliferation of fencing on the landscape. Many suggested “wildlife‐friendly” fence modifications have not been evaluated for their effectiveness on the targeted species or evaluated to assess consequences for nontarget species. We evaluated the effects of 2 modifications aimed to increase fence visibility (sage‐grouse [SAGR] reflectors and white polyvinyl chloride [PVC]) on the fence‐crossing behavior of 3 sympatric ungulates in the Northern Great Plains. We used trail cameras from 2016 to 2018 to capture images of pronghorn ( Antilocapra americana ), mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus ), and white‐tailed deer ( O. virginianus ) at sites before and after fence sections were modified and compared crossing success by the 3 ungulates with that achieved at unchanged control sites. We used generalized linear modeling and a time‐to‐event approach to test the effect of fence modifications on ungulate crossing behavior. Our results showed that both SAGR reflectors and white PVC pipe did not impede fence‐crossing behaviors for either pronghorn or deer, nor was there a time lag in use of sites observed after modifications were deployed. Though we did not alter the height of the bottom wire, there was enough variability in bottom wire height between sites that our results indicate a greater probability of successful crossing by all 3 ungulates as bottom wire height increased. We recommend implementation of both SAGR reflectors and white PVC pipe because our results demonstrate no substantial unintended consequences on the crossing behavior of pronghorn and deer. © 2020 The Authors. Wildlife Society Bulletin published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of The Wildlife Society.
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 | 0.000 | 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".