MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W364194036

Activity Patterns of Wildlife at Crossing Structures as Measure of Adaptability and Performance

2013· article· en· W364194036 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anthony P. Clevenger, Ben Dorsey, Mirjam Barrueto, Adam T. Ford

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWildlifeHabitatHabitat fragmentationWildlife corridorRecreationGeographyBiodiversityWildlife conservationFragmentation (computing)EcologyFencingDisturbance (geology)Environmental resource managementHabitat destructionEnvironmental scienceBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wildlife in mountainous regions are affected by naturally and non-naturally fragmented habitats. Nonnatural habitat fragmentation is caused by human development and activities, which tend to be concentrated in biologically rich and easily accessible valley bottom habitats. Human activity can strongly influence wildlife behavior and activity patterns and can differentially alter large mammal distributions. Typically, national parks and other protected areas were created and are currently managed for preservation of natural heritage and conservation of biodiversity. However, recreation, tourism and human infrastructure within parks and protected areas may have demographic and genetic consequences on wildlife populations and alter wildlife behavior. The effects of transportation infrastructure on wildlife are well known. In addition to road-related mortality and habitat fragmentation, transportation infrastructure can also influence habitat selection and behavior. In response to the mortality and habitat fragmentation effects of roads wildlife managers have employed mitigation measures such as fencing and wildlife crossing structures. However, for these measures to be effective wildlife have to find them and eventually use them in a biologically significant way (e.g., they must maintain or improve levels of fitness). However, sensory disturbance from traffic noise may affect movements and habitat use of sensitive species in areas near or in transportation corridors. Wildlife behaviour may be used as an indicator of how well crossing structures restore movements and connect habitats. We argue that, if wildlife crossing structures are fully functional, then wildlife activity patterns at crossing structures should reflect baseline activity parameters in areas characterized by little or no human disturbance (i.e., away from transportation infrastructure). The purpose of our presentation is to describe diel (24-hour) activity patterns of a range of large mammal species at crossing structures as a measure of adaptation and performance, and contrast these patterns to baseline conditions. Specifically, we are interested in determining whether wildlife activity at crossing structures is different from control areas without effects of transportation corridors. We analyze a long-term dataset on large mammal activity patterns obtained from infrared-operated digital cameras (camera traps) at 40 wildlife crossing structures (n=48 cameras deployed) along the Trans-Canada Highway (TCH) between 2005 and 2012. These data were compared with data obtained from camera traps (n=42) located in the backcountry of Banff National Park. The mean distance of backcountry cameras from TCH was 29.2 km (SD=11.7, min=9.3km, max=49.6km). Our results will provide an understanding of the activity patterns of wildlife at crossing structures as a measure of adaptation and performance evaluation. This is the first attempt we are aware of to utilize camera trap metadata at wildlife crossing structures other than for passage detections. Our results should assist transportation and land managers with mitigation evaluations and help devise sound attenuation strategies to enhance wildlife use of crossing structures.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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)0.0040.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.209 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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