MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3155918577 · doi:10.1111/gcb.15650

Disturbance type and species life history predict mammal responses to humans

2021· article· en· W3155918577 on OpenAlexafffund
Justin P. Suraci, Kaitlyn M. Gaynor, Maximilian L. Allen, Peter D. Alexander, Justin S. Brashares, Sara Cendejas‐Zarelli, Kevin R. Crooks, L. Mark Elbroch, Tavis D. Forrester, Austin M. Green, Jeffrey D. Haight, Nyeema C. Harris, Mark Hebblewhite, Forest Isbell, Barbara Johnston, Roland Kays, Patrick E. Lendrum, Jesse S. Lewis, Alex McInturff, William J. McShea, Thomas Murphy, Meredith S. Palmer, Arielle W. Parsons, Mitchell A. Parsons, Mary E. Pendergast, Charles E. Pekins, Laura R. Prugh, Kimberly A. Sager‐Fradkin, Stephanie Schuttler, Çağan H. Şekercioğlu, Brenda Shepherd, Laura S. Whipple, Jesse Whittington, George Wittemyer, Christopher C. Wilmers

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Change Biology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsParks Canada
FundersClimate Program OfficeNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaParks CanadaRocky Mountain Elk FoundationVWR FoundationCalifornia Department of Fish and WildlifeThe Wildlife SocietyAlberta Environment and ParksMinnesota Environment and Natural Resources Trust FundSummerlee FoundationSafari Club International FoundationU.S. Department of StateAlberta Conservation AssociationNational Geographic SocietyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDisturbance (geology)MammalEcologyTraitBiologyLife history theoryEcosystemFootprintRange (aeronautics)Ecological footprintLife history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human activity and land use change impact every landscape on Earth, driving declines in many animal species while benefiting others. Species ecological and life history traits may predict success in human-dominated landscapes such that only species with "winning" combinations of traits will persist in disturbed environments. However, this link between species traits and successful coexistence with humans remains obscured by the complexity of anthropogenic disturbances and variability among study systems. We compiled detection data for 24 mammal species from 61 populations across North America to quantify the effects of (1) the direct presence of people and (2) the human footprint (landscape modification) on mammal occurrence and activity levels. Thirty-three percent of mammal species exhibited a net negative response (i.e., reduced occurrence or activity) to increasing human presence and/or footprint across populations, whereas 58% of species were positively associated with increasing disturbance. However, apparent benefits of human presence and footprint tended to decrease or disappear at higher disturbance levels, indicative of thresholds in mammal species' capacity to tolerate disturbance or exploit human-dominated landscapes. Species ecological and life history traits were strong predictors of their responses to human footprint, with increasing footprint favoring smaller, less carnivorous, faster-reproducing species. The positive and negative effects of human presence were distributed more randomly with respect to species trait values, with apparent winners and losers across a range of body sizes and dietary guilds. Differential responses by some species to human presence and human footprint highlight the importance of considering these two forms of human disturbance separately when estimating anthropogenic impacts on wildlife. Our approach provides insights into the complex mechanisms through which human activities shape mammal communities globally, revealing the drivers of the loss of larger predators in human-modified 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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations177
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Change BiologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207