Wind farm and wildfire: spatial ecology of an endangered freshwater turtle in a recovering landscape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wind energy presents many advantages, but wind farms pose risks to wildlife and habitats. We hypothesized that habitat changes caused by the impacts of wind farm construction and wildfire would alter the spatial ecology of Spotted Turtles ( Clemmys guttata (Schneider, 1792)). In a space-for-time study design, we outfitted 28 turtles with radio transmitters in three treatments (Control n = 10, Wind farm n = 9, and Windburn (wind farm and wildfire n = 9)) and located turtles every 3–5 days throughout the active season. We did not detect any significant differences in turtle body condition, home range size, minimum daily distance moved, or microhabitat selection among treatments. Macrohabitat selection differed slightly among treatments; only Windburn turtles used wet depressions on rock barrens, which may indicate that turtles exploited early successional habitats created by wildfire. Turtles did not avoid habitats near wind farm infrastructure yet did not cross service roads unless a culvert was present, highlighting the need to maintain habitat connectivity in modified landscapes. Our findings suggest that Spotted Turtles that survived the acute impacts of the wildfire and wind farm construction were able to navigate the recovering landscape, but a before–after–control–impact study is required to understand the acute and long-term impacts of wind farms and wildfires on turtles.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".