Understanding mammal avoidance of human settlements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anthropogenic land conversion is putting increasing pressure on wildlife populations around the world. To mitigate impacts, it is necessary to develop a detailed mechanistic understanding of how animals are affected by different types of human activity. A key challenge is to disentangle the effects of static infrastructure, like roads or buildings, and the presence of humans in the landscape. To address this question, we examined if terrestrial mammals altered their movement behaviour around buildings in response to reduced human mobility during COVID-19 lockdowns. We compiled GPS tracking data from 35 study sites across five continents, for 10 carnivore species and 13 herbivore species, totalling >1 million location records from 586 individuals. For each study, we used integrated step selection analysis to test the extent to which animals changed their avoidance of buildings as lockdown took effect, leveraging the recently released Microsoft MLBuildings dataset of global building locations. Analysis of population-level effects revealed that, in areas with high Human Footprint Index (HFI), animals tended to show a significant reduction in their avoidance of buildings during lockdown, but not in low HFI areas. No such trend was detected during equivalent periods in years other than 2020, indicating that behavioural changes were a result of reduced human mobility during lockdowns. Overall, our findings suggest that animals living alongside humans exhibit greater plasticity when people change their behaviour, likely indicating the combined effects of environmental filtering and habituation. More generally, our study provides a critical first step towards developing evidence-based tools for forecasting how wildlife movement behaviour may change in response to different land-use strategies, human activities, conservation interventions or environmental perturbations.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".