MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013597748 · doi:10.1111/cobi.13502

An adaptive plan for prioritizing road sections for fencing to reduce animal mortality

2020· article· en· W3013597748 on OpenAlexaff
Ariel G. Spanowicz, Fernanda Zimmermann Teixeira, Jochen A.G. Jaeger

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Biology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFencingFence (mathematics)WildlifeGeographyBiodiversityScale (ratio)Environmental resource managementEcologyEnvironmental scienceCartographyComputer scienceBiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mortality of animals on roads is a critical threat to many wildlife populations and is poised to increase strongly because of ongoing and planned road construction. If these new roads cannot be avoided, effective mitigation measures will be necessary to stop biodiversity decline. Fencing along roads effectively reduces roadkill and is often used in combination with wildlife passages. Because fencing the entire road is not always possible due to financial constraints, high-frequency roadkill areas are often identified to inform the placement of fencing. We devised an adaptive fence-implementation plan to prioritize road sections for fencing. In this framework, areas along roads of high, moderate, and low levels of animal mortality (respectively, roadkill hotspots, warmspots, and coldspots) are identified at multiple scales (i.e., in circles of different diameters [200-2000 m] in which mortality frequency is measured). Fence deployment is based on the relationship between the amount of fencing being added to the road, starting with the strongest roadkill hotspots, and potential reduction in road mortality (displayed in mortality-reduction graphs). We applied our approach to empirical and simulated spatial patterns of wildlife-vehicle collisions. The scale used for analysis affected the number and spatial extent of roadkill hot-, warm-, and coldspots. At fine scales (e.g., 200 m), more hotspots were identified than at coarse scales (e.g., 2000 m), but combined the fine-scale hotspots covered less road and less fencing was needed to reduce road mortality. However, many short fences may be less effective in practice due to a fence-end effect (i.e., animals moving around the fence more easily), resulting in a trade-off between few long and many short fences, which we call the FLOMS (few-long-or-many-short) fences trade-off. Thresholds in the mortality-reduction graphs occurred for some roadkill patterns, but not for others. Thresholds may be useful to consider when determining road-mitigation targets. The existence of thresholds at multiple scales and the FLOMS trade-off have important implications for biodiversity conservation.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations58
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConservation BiologySame topicWildlife-Road Interactions and ConservationFrench-language works237,207