Measuring Gene Flow Across the Trans-Canada Highway and Population-Level Benefits of Road Crossing Structures for Grizzly and Black Bear in Banff National Park, Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The section of the Trans-Canada Highway (TCH) that bisects Banff National Park, Alberta supports the highest volume of traffic of any road in the North American national park system and is recognized as an important stressor to the ecological integrity of the central Canadian Rockies. Wide-ranging carnivores, such as grizzly (Ursus arctos) and black bears (U. americanus), are particularly vulnerable to road mortality and habitat fragmentation caused by roads. In order to mitigate these negative impacts on wildlife, twenty-four crossing structures have been constructed across the TCH. Over a decade of intensive study of these wildlife crossings has shown they reduce mortality and maintain wildlife movements. Track pads have recorded both bear species crossing the TCH on 1389 occasions, but the number of different individuals using the crossings, their genders and the demographic and genetic benefits of the crossings for populations remain unknown. In 2004 and 2005, a pilot study was conducted at two of the crossing structures to evaluate the feasibility of using a barbed wire hair sampling system to determine the number of individual male and female grizzly and black bears pass¬ing through the crossings. Based on the results of that pilot study, a three-year research project was initiated in 2006 to evaluate the conservation benefits of wildlife crossing structures for grizzly and black bear populations in the Bow Valley of Banff National Park. The hair sampling system was installed at 22 of 24 of the crossing structures to deter¬mine the total number of male and female bears using the crossings and the populations of grizzly and black bears in the Bow Valley surrounding the TCH were also sampled using a combination of hair snares and rub tree surveys. The genetic information derived from the hair samples will be used to: assess the effectiveness of different types of crossing structures, estimate the population sizes for both bear species in the Bow Valley, calculate the proportion of the population using the crossings and quantify the level of movement and gene flow across the TCH. This poster highlights our research objectives and presents some of the preliminary results from the 2006 field season. 12 grizzly bears (7 males, 5 females) and 11 black bears (7 males, 4 females) were identified from the samples collected at the crossing structures and 40 black bears (16 males, 24 females) and sixty-three grizzlies (37 males, 26 females) were identified from the samples collected from the hair snares and rub trees. These data will be analyzed using a combination of population viability analysis and landscape genetics approaches to assess the demographic and genetic benefits of wildlife crossings for bear populations in the Bow Valley. Wildlife crossings are gaining recognition as an effective method for reducing road-caused mortality and maintaining wildlife movement, but the conservation benefits of crossings for bears at the population-level has yet to be evaluated.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".