The moon’s influence on the activity of tropical forest mammals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Changes in lunar illumination alter the balance of risks and opportunities for animals, influencing activity patterns and species interactions. We examined if and how terrestrial mammals respond to the lunar cycle in some of the darkest places: the floors of tropical forests. We analysed long-term camera trapping data on 86 mammal species from 17 protected forests on three continents. Conservative categorization of activity during the night revealed pronounced avoidance of moonlight (lunar phobia) in 12 species, compared with pronounced attraction to moonlight (lunar philia) in only three species. However, half of all species in our study responded to lunar phases, either changing how nocturnal they were, altering their overall level of activity, or both. Avoidance of full moon was more common, exhibited by 30% of all species compared with 20% of species that exhibited attraction. Nocturnal species, especially rodents, were over-represented among species that avoided full moon. Artiodactyla were more prominent among species attracted to full moon. Our findings indicate that lunar phases influence animal behaviour even beneath the forest canopy. Such impacts may be exacerbated in degraded and fragmented forests. Our study offers a baseline representing relatively intact and well-protected contexts together with an intuitive approach for detecting activity shifts in response to environmental change.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".