Human encroachment suppresses play behaviour of parkland fallow deer fawns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While contact with nature is beneficial for human health and wellbeing, the increasing human population has resulted in greater contact with urban wildlife, which, in turn, results in animal welfare and behaviour being negatively affected. Although adult animals may habituate to people, how human presence impacts the behaviour of juveniles is poorly understood. Play is central to juvenile physical, cognitive and social development and occurs when individuals are in a stress-free state. With this in mind, we investigated how human disturbance affects play in parkland fallow deer fawns, Dama dama . Disturbances were commonplace: across 572 unique observations, we recorded more than 3000 pedestrians within 50 m of the deer, 60% of whom directly approached the deer. We found that, while fawns ignored pedestrians who avoided approaching them, they interrupted play when directly approached. Fawns returned to play quickly following disturbance, yet the suppressive effects of disturbance persisted over time, as fawns failed to demonstrate any habituation. Additionally, the probability of observing fawns playing was highest in areas with typically low pedestrian activity, such as woodlands or locations restricted from public access, regardless of whether pedestrians were present at the time of observation. Combined, our results indicate that human proximity alone is not disruptive; however, encroachment has limited but sustained suppressive effects on play and the cumulative effects of lost play time could be significant given the key role of play in development. We suggest that play, as a natural feature of juvenile behaviour, can be a valuable indicator for the impact of human disturbance in many species. Furthermore, as 60% of the pedestrians observed in this study actively encroached on the deer, we conclude that changes to human behaviour are critical for the development and wellbeing of juvenile animals. • Human-wildlife interactions in public parks can affect animal behaviour. • Play, a key juvenile behaviour, was suppressed by pedestrian encroachment. • Pedestrians avoiding direct approaches had no measurable impact on fawn play. • Play suppression was brief, yet fawns showed no habituation to encroachment. • Park management should limit direct human-animal contact to protect juveniles.
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) | 0.002 | 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".