MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392391142 · doi:10.1002/ece3.10909

Temporal variations in female moose responses to roads and logging in the absence of wolves

2024· article· en· W4392391142 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mireille Gagnon, Frédéric Lesmerises, Martin‐Hugues St‐Laurent

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology and Evolution · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsMinistère de l’Environnement, de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques, de la Faune et des ParcsMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des ForêtsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPredationHabitatEcologyHome rangeLimitingLoggingUngulateRange (aeronautics)ForagingCanisForageUrsusGeographyWildlifeBiologyPopulationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Animal movements, needed to acquire food resources, avoid predation risk, and find breeding partners, are influenced by annual and circadian cycles. Decisions related to movement reflect a quest to maximize benefits while limiting costs, especially in heterogeneous landscapes. Predation by wolves (Canis lupus) has been identified as the major driver of moose (Alces alces) habitat selection patterns, and linear features have been shown to increase wolf efficiency to travel, hunt, and kill prey. However, few studies have described moose behavioral response to roads and logging in Canada in the absence of wolves. We thus characterized temporal changes (i.e., day phases and biological periods) in eastern moose (Alces alces americana) habitat selection and space use patterns near a road network in a wolf‐free area located south of the St. Lawrence River (eastern Canada). We used telemetry data collected on 18 females between 2017 and 2019 to build resource selection functions and mixed linear regressions to explain variations in habitat selection patterns, home‐range size, and movement rates. Female moose selected forest stands providing forage when movement was not impeded by snow cover (i.e., spring/green‐up, summer/rearing, fall/rut) and stands offering protection against incidental predation during calving. In winter, home‐range size decreased with an increasing proportion of stands providing food and shelter against harsh weather, limiting the energetic costs associated with movement. Our results reaffirmed the year‐round aversive effect of roads, even in the absence of wolves, but the magnitude of this avoidance differed between day phases, being lower during the “dusk‐night‐dawn” phase, perhaps due to a lower level of human activity on and near roads. Female moose behavior in our study area was similar to what was observed in landscapes where moose and wolves cohabit, suggesting that the risk associated with humans, perceived as another type of predator, and with incidental predators (coyote Canis latrans, black bear Ursus americanus), equates that of wolf predation in heavily managed landscapes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology and EvolutionSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207