MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3117471671 · doi:10.1111/1365-2656.13416

Noise and landscape features influence habitat use of mammalian herbivores in a natural gas field

2020· article· en· W3117471671 on OpenAlexaff
Nathan J. Kleist, Rachel T. Buxton, Patrick E. Lendrum, Carlos Linares, Kevin R. Crooks, George Wittemyer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Ecology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWildlifeHabitatNoise (video)PredationEcologyContext (archaeology)Disturbance (geology)HerbivoreOccupancyNatural (archaeology)Environmental scienceGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anthropogenic noise is a complex disturbance known to elicit a variety of responses in wild animals. Most studies examining the effects of noise on wildlife focus on vocal species, although theory suggests that the acoustic environment influences non-vocal species as well. Common mammalian prey species, like mule deer and hares and rabbits (members of the family Leporidae), rely on acoustic cues for information regarding predation, but the impacts of noise on their behaviour has received little attention. We paired acoustic recorders with camera traps to explore how average daily levels of anthropogenic noise from natural gas activity impacted occupancy and detection of mammalian herbivores in an energy field in the production phase of development. We consider the effects of noise in the context of several physical landscape variables associated with natural gas infrastructure that are known to influence habitat use patterns in mule deer. Our results suggest that mule deer detection probability was influenced by the interaction between physical landscape features and anthropogenic noise, with noise strongly reducing habitat use. In contrast, leporid habitat use was not related to noise but was influenced by landscape features. Notably, mule deer showed a stronger predicted negative response to roads with high noise exposure. This study highlights the complex interactions of anthropogenic disturbance and wildlife distribution and presents important evidence that the effects of anthropogenic noise should be considered in research focused on non-vocal specialist species and management plans for mule deer and other large ungulates.

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 score0.607
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal EcologySame topicAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207