Importance of high-resolution spatial data for the detection of winter wildlife responses to edges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several wildlife species are thought to avoid edges of large habitat gaps, such as clear-cuts, but detailed evidence is rarely available for edges of smaller gaps. We compared the responses of nine wintering mammal species to forest edges in southern Quebec, Canada, using high-resolution spatial data from light detection and ranging (LiDAR) and low-resolution photo-interpretation. We defined edges of open areas as roads, lakes, rivers, or forest open areas. We geolocated mammal snow tracks along systematic transect lines between 2009 and 2018. We compared distances of snow tracks and reference points along transects to the nearest edge with linear models. LiDAR data revealed five species avoiding forest open area edges, whereas no avoidance was shown using photo-interpretation data. Weasels ( Mustela sp.) were the only species showing a positive association with forest open area edges using photo-interpreted data. No significant response was detected for river or lake edges. Four species were positively associated with road edges. We conclude that avoidance of small forest open area edges is widespread in our study area, but it can only be detected with high-resolution spatial data. Our results imply that edge effect can operate at a fine scale and using appropriate spatial resolution is crucial to detect such effects.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".