Greater Sage‐Grouse Response to the Physical Footprint of Energy Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Energy infrastructure and associated habitat loss can lead to reduced reproductive rates for a variety of species including the greater sage‐grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ). Our goal was to refine our understanding of how the physical footprint of energy development relates to sage‐grouse nest and brood survival. Our survival analyses were conditional upon the amount of surface disturbance female sage‐grouse were exposed to during reproductive stages. We quantified levels of exposure and compared them to the surface disturbance levels of the surrounding area. From 2008–2014, we collected data in 6 study areas in Wyoming, USA, containing 4 primary types of renewable and nonrenewable energy development. Our research focused on press disturbance (i.e., disturbance sustained after initial disturbance and associated with existing energy infrastructure and human activity). Our results suggest exposure to press disturbance during nesting and brood‐rearing was related to lower nest and brood survival, which manifested at different spatial scales. Our analysis of nest survival suggested that the likelihood of a successful nest was negatively associated with the amount of press disturbance within an 8‐km² area. Broods exposed to any press disturbance within a 1‐km 2 area were less likely to survive compared to broods not exposed to press disturbance. Female sage‐grouse consistently used habitat with lower disturbance levels during reproductive periods. Greater than 90% of nest and brood‐rearing locations were in habitat with <3% press disturbance within a 2.7‐km 2 area. Our research links surface disturbance associated with press disturbance to reproductive costs incurred by sage‐grouse exposed to diverse energy development. Our results demonstrate a pattern of female avoidance of areas where press disturbance was high during nesting and brood‐rearing and survival of nests and broods were highest in areas that had the least amount of disturbance. Our findings underscore the importance of minimizing disturbance to maintain viable sage‐grouse populations. © 2020 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".