Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35543078›Full record

ArticleEcological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America2022

Responses to natural gas development differ by season for two migratory ungulates.

Mallory Sandoval Lambert, Hall Sawyer, Jerod A Merkle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Mechanisms and impacts of migration by moose: The role of wildfire.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Responses to natural gas development differ by season for two migratory ungulates.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mallory Sandoval LambertZoology and Physiology Department, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0196-4800
Hall SawyerWestern Ecosystems Technology Inc., Laramie, Wyoming, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3789-7558
Jerod A MerkleZoology and Physiology Department, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0100-1833

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While migrating, animals make directionally persistent movements and may only respond to human-induced rapid environmental change (HIREC), such as climate and land-use change, once a threshold of HIREC is surpassed. In contrast, animals on other seasonal ranges (e.g., winter range) make more localized and tortuous movements while foraging and may have the flexibility to adjust the location of their range and the intensity of use within it to minimize interactions with HIREC. Because of these seasonal differences in movement, animals on seasonal ranges should avoid areas that contain any level of HIREC, however, during migration, animals should use areas that contain low levels of HIREC, avoiding it only once a threshold of HIREC has been surpassed. We tested this hypothesis using a decade of GPS collar data collected from migratory mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus; n = 56 migration, 143 winter) and pronghorn (Antilocapra americana; n = 70 migration, 89 winter) that winter on and migrate through a natural gas field in western Wyoming. Using surface disturbance caused by well pads and roads as an index of HIREC, we evaluated behavioral responses across three spatial scales during winter and migration seasons. During migration, both species tolerated low levels of disturbance. Once a disturbance threshold was surpassed, however, they avoided HIREC. For mule deer, thresholds were consistently ~3%, whereas thresholds for pronghorn ranged from 1% to 9.25% surface disturbance. In contrast to migration, both species generally avoided all levels of HIREC while on winter range. Our study suggests that animal responses to HIREC are mediated by season-specific movement patterns. Our results provide further evidence of ungulates avoiding human disturbance on winter range and reveal disturbance thresholds that trigger mule deer and pronghorn responses during migration: information that managers can use to maintain the ecological function of migration routes and winter ranges.

Indexed as

DeerAnimalsEcosystemEquidaeHumansNatural GasRuminantsSeasonsNatural GasAntilocapra americanaenergy developmenthabitat selectionhuman-induced rapid environmental changemigrationmovement ecologymule deerOdocoileus hemionuspronghornthresholdsungulatewinter range

Identifiers

PMID35543078
PMCPMC13425686

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.