Who’s active when and where? Unraveling the habitat use and temporal strategies of prey in a predator-human shared landscape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the habitat use and temporal activity patterns of key prey species is crucial for conserving large carnivores, such as tigers and leopards , especially in landscapes dominated by humans. Hence, this study investigated the habitat associations and diel activity overlaps of six major prey species with both predators and humans in Banke National Park (BaNP), Nepal. For this, we deployed camera traps (n = 30) along a 2 km × 2 km grid, resulting in a total sampling effort of 450 trap nights. Generalized linear mixed models were used to reveal species-specific habitat associations. Barking deer were found associated with areas of sparse vegetation and proximity to water while avoiding roads; in contrast, spotted deer tolerated higher levels of human disturbance. Similarly, four-horned antelopes avoided steep slopes, wild boars were less common near roads, and Indian crested porcupines preferred regions with low disturbance. Temporal activity analyses indicated diverse activity patterns among prey, ranging from crepuscular to nocturnal, with most species exhibiting moderate overlap with predator activity. The reduced temporal synchrony noted for spotted deer and four-horned antelopes supports the human shield hypothesis, suggesting that these species alter their activity in response to increased human presence to mitigate predation risk. Conversely, predators minimized their temporal overlap with humans, likely as an adaptive strategy to avoid encounters. These findings signify the necessity for species-specific habitat management to sustain prey populations and mitigate human-wildlife conflict. We recommend conducting further studies to gather year-round data that will provide a thorough understanding of how seasonal changes influence the activities of prey and their predators in the study area and similar 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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".