Moving in the anthropocene: global reductions in terrestrial mammalian movements

Animal movement is fundamental for ecosystem functioning and species survival, yet the effects of the anthropogenic footprint on animal movements have not been estimated across species. Using a unique GPS-tracking database of 803 individuals across 57 species, we found that movements of mammals in areas with a comparatively high human footprint were on average one-half to one-third the extent of their movements in areas with a low human footprint. We attribute this reduction to behavioral changes of individual animals and to the exclusion of species with long-range movements from areas with higher human impact. Global loss of vagility alters a key ecological trait of animals that affects not only population persistence but also ecosystem processes such as predator-prey interactions, nutrient cycling, and disease transmission

Spatial patterns of large African cats : a large-scale study on density, home range size, and home range overlap of lions Panthera leo and leopards Panthera pardus

SUPPORTING INFORMATION : APPENDIX S1. Site information. APPENDIX S2. Intuitive explanation of the autocorrelated kernel density estimator. APPENDIX S3. Sources of density data. APPENDIX S4. Mathematical modifications of Jetz et al.’s (2014) overlap equation. APPENDIX S5. Lion pride size data.1. Spatial patterns of and competition for resources by territorial carnivores are typically explained by two hypotheses: 1) the territorial defence hypothesis and 2) the searching efficiency hypothesis. 2. According to the territorial defence hypothesis, when food resources are abundant, carnivore densities will be high and home ranges small. In addition, carnivores can maximise their necessary energy intake with minimal territorial defence. At medium resource levels, larger ranges will be needed, and it will become more economically beneficial to defend resources against a lower density of competitors. At low resource levels, carnivore densities will be low and home ranges large, but resources will be too scarce to make it beneficial to defend such large territories. Thus, home range overlap will be minimal at intermediate carnivore densities. 3. According to the searching efficiency hypothesis, there is a cost to knowing a home range. Larger areas are harder to learn and easier to forget, so carnivores constantly need to keep their cognitive map updated by regularly revisiting parts of their home ranges. Consequently, when resources are scarce, carnivores require larger home ranges to acquire sufficient food. These larger home ranges lead to more overlap among individuals’ ranges, so that overlap in home ranges is largest when food availability is the lowest. Since conspecific density is low when food availability is low, this hypothesis predicts that overlap is largest when densities are the lowest. 4. We measured home range overlap and used a novel method to compare intraspecific home range overlaps for lions Panthera leo (n = 149) and leopards Panthera pardus (n = 111) in Africa. We estimated home range sizes from telemetry location data and gathered carnivore density data from the literature. 5. Our results did not support the territorial defence hypothesis for either species. Lion prides increased their home range overlap at conspecific lower densities whereas leopards did not. Lion pride changes in overlap were primarily due to increases in group size at lower densities. By contrast, the unique dispersal strategies of leopards led to reduced overlap at lower densities. However, when human-caused mortality was higher, leopards increased their home range overlap. Although lions and leopards are territorial, their territorial behaviour was less important than the acquisition of food in determining their space use. Such information is crucial for the future conservation of these two iconic African carnivores.The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and a Hugh Kelly Fellowship from Rhodes University, Grahamstown, SA.https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/13652907am2024Centre for Wildlife ManagementMammal Research InstituteZoology and EntomologySDG-15:Life on lan

Mammals show faster recovery from capture and tagging in human-disturbed landscapes

Wildlife tagging provides critical insights into animal movement ecology, physiology, and behavior amid global ecosystem changes. However, the stress induced by capture, handling, and tagging can impact post-release locomotion and activity and, consequently, the interpretation of study results. Here, we analyze post-tagging effects on 1585 individuals of 42 terrestrial mammal species using collar-collected GPS and accelerometer data. Species-specific displacements and overall dynamic body acceleration, as a proxy for activity, were assessed over 20 days post-release to quantify disturbance intensity, recovery duration, and speed. Differences were evaluated, considering species-specific traits and the human footprint of the study region. Over 70% of the analyzed species exhibited significant behavioral changes following collaring events. Herbivores traveled farther with variable activity reactions, while omnivores and carnivores were initially less active and mobile. Recovery duration proved brief, with alterations diminishing within 4–7 tracking days for most species. Herbivores, particularly males, showed quicker displacement recovery (4 days) but slower activity recovery (7 days). Individuals in high human footprint areas displayed faster recovery, indicating adaptation to human disturbance. Our findings emphasize the necessity of extending tracking periods beyond 1 week and particular caution in remote study areas or herbivore-focused research, specifically in smaller mammals

Effects of body size on estimation of mammalian area requirements

Accurately quantifying species’ area requirements is a prerequisite for effective area-based conservation. This typically involves collecting tracking data on species of interest and then conducting home-range analyses. Problematically, autocorrelation in tracking data can result in space needs being severely underestimated. Based on the previous work, we hypothesized the magnitude of underestimation varies with body mass, a relationship that could have serious conservation implications. To evaluate this hypothesis for terrestrial mammals, we estimated home-range areas with global positioning system (GPS) locations from 757 individuals across 61 globally distributed mammalian species with body masses ranging from 0.4 to 4000 kg. We then applied block cross-validation to quantify bias in empirical home-range estimates. Area requirements of mammals 1, meaning the scaling of the relationship changed substantially at the upper end of the mass spectrum.publishedVersio

Effects of body size on estimation of mammalian area requirements

Accurately quantifying species’ area requirements is a prerequisite for effective area-based conservation. This typically involves collecting tracking data on species of interest and then conducting home-range analyses. Problematically, autocorrelation in tracking data can result in space needs being severely underestimated. Based on the previous work, we hypothesized the magnitude of underestimation varies with body mass, a relationship that could have serious conservation implications. To evaluate this hypothesis for terrestrial mammals, we estimated home-range areas with global positioning system (GPS) locations from 757 individuals across 61 globally distributed mammalian species with body masses ranging from 0.4 to 4000 kg. We then applied block cross-validation to quantify bias in empirical home-range estimates. Area requirements of mammals 1, meaning the scaling of the relationship changed substantially at the upper end of the mass spectrum

The implications of large home range size in a solitary felid, the Leopard (Panthera pardus)

The size of the home range of a mammal is affected by numerous factors. However, in the normally solitary, but polygynous, Leopard (Panthera pardus), home range size and maintenance is complicated by their transitory social grouping behavior, which is dependent on life history stage and/or reproductive status. In addition, the necessity to avoid competition with conspecifics and other large predators (including humans) also impacts upon home range size. We used movement data from 31 sites across Africa, comprising 147 individuals (67 males and 80 females) to estimate the home range sizes of leopards. We found that leopards with larger home ranges, and in areas with more vegetation, spent longer being active and generally traveled faster, and in straighter lines, than leopards with smaller home ranges. We suggest that a combination of bottom-up (i.e., preferred prey availability), top-down (i.e., competition with conspecifics), and reproductive (i.e., access to mates) factors likely drive the variability in Leopard home range sizes across Africa. However, the maintenance of a large home range is energetically expensive for leopards, likely resulting in a complex evolutionary trade-off between the satisfaction of basic requirements and preventing potentially dangerous encounters with conspecifics, other predators, and people

The implications of large home range size in a solitary felid, the leopard (Panthera pardus)

DATA AVAILABILITY : All raw data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.SUPPLEMENTARY DATA SD1.—Two additional figures and a detailed appendix of site locations are provided.The size of the home range of a mammal is affected by numerous factors. However, in the normally solitary, but polygynous, Leopard (Panthera pardus), home range size and maintenance is complicated by their transitory social grouping behavior, which is dependent on life history stage and/or reproductive status. In addition, the necessity to avoid competition with conspecifics and other large predators (including humans) also impacts upon home range size. We used movement data from 31 sites across Africa, comprising 147 individuals (67 males and 80 females) to estimate the home range sizes of leopards. We found that leopards with larger home ranges, and in areas with more vegetation, spent longer being active and generally traveled faster, and in straighter lines, than leopards with smaller home ranges. We suggest that a combination of bottom-up (i.e., preferred prey availability), top-down (i.e., competition with conspecifics), and reproductive (i.e., access to mates) factors likely drive the variability in Leopard home range sizes across Africa. However, the maintenance of a large home range is energetically expensive for leopards, likely resulting in a complex evolutionary trade-off between the satisfaction of basic requirements and preventing potentially dangerous encounters with conspecifics, other predators, and people.The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and a Hugh Kelly Fellowship from Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa.https://academic.oup.com/jmammal2024-09-11hj2024Mammal Research InstituteZoology and EntomologySDG-15:Life on lan

Effects of body size on estimation of mammalian area requirements

Accurately quantifying species' area requirements is a prerequisite for effective area-based conservation. This typically involves collecting tracking data on species of interest and then conducting home-range analyses. Problematically, autocorrelation in tracking data can result in space needs being severely underestimated. Based on the previous work, we hypothesized the magnitude of underestimation varies with body mass, a relationship that could have serious conservation implications. To evaluate this hypothesis for terrestrial mammals, we estimated home-range areas with global positioning system (GPS) locations from 757 individuals across 61 globally distributed mammalian species with body masses ranging from 0.4 to 4000 kg. We then applied block cross-validation to quantify bias in empirical home-range estimates. Area requirements of mammals 1, meaning the scaling of the relationship changed substantially at the upper end of the mass spectrum

Spatial patterns of large African cats : a large-scale study on density, home range size, and home range overlap of lions Panthera leo and leopards Panthera pardus

Spatial patterns of and competition for resources by territorial carnivores are typically explained by two hypotheses: 1) the territorial defence hypothesis and 2) the searching efficiency hypothesis. According to the territorial defence hypothesis, when food resources are abundant, carnivore densities will be high and home ranges small. In addition, carnivores can maximise their necessary energy intake with minimal territorial defence. At medium resource levels, larger ranges will be needed, and it will become more economically beneficial to defend resources against a lower density of competitors. At low resource levels, carnivore densities will be low and home ranges large, but resources will be too scarce to make it beneficial to defend such large territories. Thus, home range overlap will be minimal at intermediate carnivore densities. According to the searching efficiency hypothesis, there is a cost to knowing a home range. Larger areas are harder to learn and easier to forget, so carnivores constantly need to keep their cognitive map updated by regularly revisiting parts of their home ranges. Consequently, when resources are scarce, carnivores require larger home ranges to acquire sufficient food. These larger home ranges lead to more overlap among individuals' ranges, so that overlap in home ranges is largest when food availability is the lowest. Since conspecific density is low when food availability is low, this hypothesis predicts that overlap is largest when densities are the lowest. We measured home range overlap and used a novel method to compare intraspecific home range overlaps for lions Panthera leo (n = 149) and leopards Panthera pardus (n = 111) in Africa. We estimated home range sizes from telemetry location data and gathered carnivore density data from the literature. Our results did not support the territorial defence hypothesis for either species. Lion prides increased their home range overlap at conspecific lower densities whereas leopards did not. Lion pride changes in overlap were primarily due to increases in group size at lower densities. By contrast, the unique dispersal strategies of leopards led to reduced overlap at lower densities. However, when human-caused mortality was higher, leopards increased their home range overlap. Although lions and leopards are territorial, their territorial behaviour was less important than the acquisition of food in determining their space use. Such information is crucial for the future conservation of these two iconic African carnivores