Risk‐taking in free‐living spotted hyenas is associated with anthropogenic disturbance, predicts survivorship, and is consistent across experimental contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Anthropogenic disturbance can have important influences on the fitness and behaviors of wild animals, including their boldness when exposed to risky conditions. We presented spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta) from two populations, each exposed to a different level of human activity, with a life‐size model hyena representing an intruder from another clan. The high‐disturbance population lived adjacent to human settlements, and the low‐disturbance population inhabited a relatively undisturbed part of the same national park in Kenya. The mock intruder was presented to individual hyenas to assess their reactions to an alien hyena, and to determine whether their reactions varied with their exposure to anthropogenic activity. We found that human disturbance was indeed associated with hyena risk‐taking behavior in response to the model intruder. Hyenas tested in the low‐disturbance area exhibited more risk‐taking behaviors by approaching the mock intruder more closely, and spending more time near it, than did their counterparts living in high‐disturbance areas. Hyenas that spent less time in close proximity to the model had greater survivorship than those that spent more time in close proximity to it, regardless of disturbance level. Furthermore, the individual differences in risk‐taking measured here were consistent with those obtained previously from the same animals using a different set of experimental manipulations. However, the experimentally induced behaviors were not consistent with naturally occurring risk‐taking behaviors in proximity to lions; this suggests that risk‐taking behaviors are consistent within individuals across experimental contexts, but that exposure to lions elicits different responses. Although our results are consistent with those from earlier tests of anthropogenic disturbance and boldness in spotted hyenas and other predators, they differ from results obtained from birds and small mammals, which are generally found to be bolder in areas characterized by human disturbance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".