Co-use of existing crossing structures along roads by wildlife and humans: Wishful thinking?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assesses existing human-purpose underpasses below an unfenced high-traffic 4-lane highway in the Appalachian region of Quebec, Canada, as potential crossing structures for native mammal species. Eight underpasses of three types (five water culverts with minimum height and width of 1.8 m, one low-use gravel road byway, and two railroad underpasses) were continuously monitored by motion-detection infrared camera traps for time periods spanning up to 778 days (September 2016 to November 2018). We asked how the ratios of successful crossings through the structures (termed full crossings) and aversions to the structures (termed aversions) differed between species and we explored the influence of human activity levels on the use of these structures by wildlife. All monitored crossing structures had low human observations (with averages of less than 35 human activities per day). Our results provide evidence that 21 species of mammals in the study area successfully crossed through at least one of the eight observed underpasses on a minimum of one occasion. Some species were observed crossing through some of the underpasses on a regular basis, namely raccoon, red fox, and white-tailed deer. We propose a classification of mammal species into five human co-use classes (no or low co-use to very high co-use) to explore the relationship between mammal use of the structures and human presence. We found that humans and mammals were observed sharing passages for the four mammal species identified as tolerant of human co-use (high and very high co-use classes), but co-use was observed to be limited or not occurring for most other species. The strengths of this study include the length of time during which monitoring took place, as well as the placement of four cameras at each structure (two facing inward and two facing outward) to determine whether individuals successfully crossed through the structures or displayed avoidance behaviour. The results suggest select species of mammals show some co-use with humans at existing underpasses. The activity patterns of mammals documented over the two-year study can assist with future estimates of highway permeability. Further, measurements of human and mammal co-use have species-specific implications for retrofitting existing structures and constructing wildlife fences and purpose-built wildlife passages.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".