Complex Variation in Afrotropical Mammal Communities With Human Impact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The diversity and composition of mammal communities are strongly influenced by human activities, though these relationships may vary across broad scales. Understanding this variation is key to conservation, as it provides a baseline for planning and evaluating management interventions. We assessed variation in the structure and composition of Afrotropical medium and large mammal communities within and outside protected areas, and under varying human impact. We collected data at 512 locations from 22 study sites in 12 Afrotropical countries over 7 years and 3 months (2011-2018) with 164,474 camera trap days in total. Half of these sites are located inside protected areas and half in unprotected areas. The sites are comparable in that they all harbor at least one great ape species, indicating a minimum level of habitat similarity, though they experience varying degrees of human impact. We applied Bayesian Regression models to relate site protection status and the degree of human impact to mammal communities. Protected area status was positively associated with the proportion of all threatened species, independent of the degree of human impact. Similarly, species richness was associated with area protection but was more sensitive to human impact. For all other attributes of the mammal communities, the pattern was more complex. The influence of human impact partially overrides the positive effects of protected area status, resulting in comparable mammal communities being observed both within protected areas and in similarly remote locations outside these areas. We observed a common pattern for large carnivores, whose probability of occurrence declined significantly with increasing human impact, independent of site protection status. Mammal communities benefit from sustainability measures of socio-economic context that minimize human impact. Our results support the notion that conservation of mammalian species can be achieved by reducing human impact through targeted conservation measures, adopting landscape-level management strategies, fostering community engagement, and safeguarding remote habitats with high mammal diversity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".