Mammals turn to night life to avoid people

[Itoero]

Human activities including hunting and hiking are driving mammals around the world to be more active at night, when they’re less likely to run into people, according to a new study. The consequences of this shift are still unclear, but scientists suspect it could threaten the survival of several animal populations.

Coyotes are among the more than 60 mammal species that have shifted to a more nocturnal schedule when living around people.

http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05430-4

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Human activities including hunting and hiking are driving mammals around the world to be more active at night, when they’re less likely to run into people, according to a new study. The consequences of this shift are still unclear, but scientists suspect it could threaten the survival of several animal populations.

Coyotes are among the more than 60 mammal species that have shifted to a more nocturnal schedule when living around people.

http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05430-4

one day I'll regret this...

[Moontanman]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

one day I'll regret this...

They like the nightlife, they like to boogie!

Sorry I couldn't help it. 

I know this is true of deer, hunting pressure has driven them to a largely nocturnal lifestyle in much of their range... not to mention the whole boogie factor.. 

[T. McGrath]

Total bunk.  A great example of really bad pseudo-science.

[Moontanman]

8 hours ago, T. McGrath said:

Total bunk.  A great example of really bad pseudo-science.

Do you have any evidence of this? 

[zapatos]

8 hours ago, T. McGrath said:

Total bunk.  A great example of really bad pseudo-science.

Sorry, you don't just get to lob a pile of coyote poop and run off. If you want to disparage a claim that includes evidence, you need to provide some counter evidence.

[Janus]

On 7/29/2018 at 8:05 AM, Itoero said:

Human activities including hunting and hiking are driving mammals around the world to be more active at night, when they’re less likely to run into people, according to a new study. The consequences of this shift are still unclear, but scientists suspect it could threaten the survival of several animal populations.

Coyotes are among the more than 60 mammal species that have shifted to a more nocturnal schedule when living around people.

http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05430-4

Human activities and their behavior can have the opposite effect too.

There is a fitness trail that circles a nearby golf course that my wife and I walk on just about a daily basis.  It is located in a largely residential area of Portland and ~8 mi from downtown Portland.  It is the Glendoveer golf course marked on this map ( I added a distance scale at the bottom of the image). 

We regularly see a Coyote or two there, and at different times of the day.  They are a breeding pair that actually has a den somewhere on the Golf course grounds.(My wife and I have dubbed them "Glen and Glenda", ).   

Despite the signs asking them not to, people walking the trail tend to feed the squirrels, which caused a large increase in the population ( and some pretty brazen squirrels).  The coyotes prey on the squirrels and help keep their numbers down (We  actually watched one make a successful catch once) . One of the grounds workers told us that after the coyotes showed, up the squirrel population dropped to about a third of what it was. 

So the golf course leaves the coyotes alone, as they act as pest control, and the coyotes have learned that humans are no threat. You'll often see them just laying in the middle of a green with golfers fairly nearby, and once, one was sitting at a tee just 10 yd or so from the trail as we walked by.

 

[mistermack]

It could be food that's at the heart of the phenomenon, rather than a deliberate tactical change on the part of the animals.

If shy animals get disturbed during the day, they will spend more time hiding, and looking out for danger, and less time feeding. So they will be more hungry at night, and will forage at night, when they are not being disturbed, in response to the hunger.

[T. McGrath]

On 8/7/2018 at 5:19 AM, zapatos said:

Sorry, you don't just get to lob a pile of coyote poop and run off. If you want to disparage a claim that includes evidence, you need to provide some counter evidence.

First you have to have actual evidence.  All they have are supposition and conjecture, and they know it.  Which is why their so-called conclusions begins with "seems to..."  This is nothing more than anthropomorphism, attempting to impose human characteristics and behaviors into animals they observe.  It is total BS.

[Itoero]

6 hours ago, T. McGrath said:

First you have to have actual evidence.  All they have are supposition and conjecture, and they know it.  Which is why their so-called conclusions begins with "seems to..."  This is nothing more than anthropomorphism, attempting to impose human characteristics and behaviors into animals they observe.  It is total BS.

There is a lot of evidence, that's why they made the article. The effect of humans on ecosystems is well known. There are 'positive' and negative effects.

[jimmydasaint]

9 hours ago, T. McGrath said:

First you have to have actual evidence.  All they have are supposition and conjecture, and they know it.  Which is why their so-called conclusions begins with "seems to..."  This is nothing more than anthropomorphism, attempting to impose human characteristics and behaviors into animals they observe.  It is total BS.

Wow! What a remarkably obtuse answer!

From a quick glance, this looks like a meta-analysis of 76 published studies (all of which are likely to have been peer-reviewed). The opinion reached by at maximum 76 teams of researchers who use the scientific method are likely to be better than you sitting at your computer and trying to rubbish their work. Don't talk complete garbage.  Also, if you are a troll, you are likely to get caught early with your stubborn and near-sighted nonsense.

Quote

Researchers analysed 76 published studies that monitored the activity of 62 mammal species, including some that are mostly nocturnal by nature, on 6 continents. They compared the night-time activity of each species during periods of time or in regions with high human disturbance, such as during hunting season or in areas rife with roads, with their night-time activity during periods of time or in regions with low human disturbance. The findings1, published on 14 June in Science, show that most mammals become on average 20% more active at night in response to higher levels of human disturbance.

 

Edited August 11, 2018 by jimmydasaint

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, jimmydasaint said:

Wow! What a remarkably obtuse answer!

From a quick glance, this looks like a meta-analysis of 76 published studies (all of which are likely to have been peer-reviewed). The opinion reached by at maximum 76 teams of researchers who use the scientific method are likely to be better than you sitting at your computer and trying to rubbish their work. Don't talk complete garbage.  Also, if you are a troll, you are likely to get caught early with your stubborn and near-sighted nonsense.

 

Can you give a us link to that meta-analysis? My post was just based on anecdotal talks with hunters but it agreed with you.. 

11 hours ago, T. McGrath said:

First you have to have actual evidence.  All they have are supposition and conjecture, and they know it.  Which is why their so-called conclusions begins with "seems to..."  This is nothing more than anthropomorphism, attempting to impose human characteristics and behaviors into animals they observe.  It is total BS.

I apologise my post as based on many conversations of hunters, take away the hunters and deer become very friendly daytime inhabitants of golf courses and housing developments...

Edited August 11, 2018 by Moontanman

[zapatos]

11 hours ago, T. McGrath said:

First you have to have actual evidence.  All they have are supposition and conjecture, and they know it.  Which is why their so-called conclusions begins with "seems to..."  This is nothing more than anthropomorphism, attempting to impose human characteristics and behaviors into animals they observe.  It is total BS.

So you know what they know. Those are some impressive powers you have.

[T. McGrath]

5 hours ago, Itoero said:

There is a lot of evidence, that's why they made the article. The effect of humans on ecosystems is well known. There are 'positive' and negative effects.

So where is this evidence?  You only think the effects of humans on the ecosystems are well known.  There is no evidence of that either.  Science is about producing evidence.  If you want indoctrination instead of science there is always the public school system.

2 hours ago, jimmydasaint said:

Wow! What a remarkably obtuse answer!

From a quick glance, this looks like a meta-analysis of 76 published studies (all of which are likely to have been peer-reviewed). The opinion reached by at maximum 76 teams of researchers who use the scientific method are likely to be better than you sitting at your computer and trying to rubbish their work. Don't talk complete garbage.  Also, if you are a troll, you are likely to get caught early with your stubborn and near-sighted nonsense.

 

So where is this supposed data?  At what latitude and time of the year did they make these observations, and for how long?  You know, actual evidence?  Making up some BS about how a chimpmunk refuses to cross a man-made road then drawing the conclusion that it MUST be because of the impact of humanity doesn't cut it as far as evidence is concerned.

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

Can you give a us link to that meta-analysis? My post was just based on anecdotal talks with hunters but it agreed with you.. 

I apologise my post as based on many conversations of hunters, take away the hunters and deer become very friendly daytime inhabitants of golf courses and housing developments...

Anecdotes do not qualify as evidence either.  Animal behavior can be observed, but to attempt to draw any conclusions based upon those observations is completely invalid.  There is absolutely no way any observer can determine what another animal is thinking, why they behave a particular way, or what is influencing their behavior.  It is entirely conjuncture and anthropomorphism.

To use your example, if you take away the hunters deer become over-populated and are forced to resort to inhabit golf courses and housing developments in order to find food.  That is equally as invalid of a conclusion as you assuming they are becoming suddenly very friendly.  The reality is that we do not know what is influencing their behavior.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

So you know what they know. Those are some impressive powers you have.

Yea, it is called reading the paper.  You might try it sometime.  Here is the link:  http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6394/1232

Edited August 11, 2018 by T. McGrath

[jimmydasaint]

I see A meta-analysis is an overall view based on other analyses by other researchers.  This marks a review of trends about "nocturnality".

The original paper can be share here:

Quote

Abstract

Rapid expansion of human activity has driven well-documented shifts in the spatial distribution of wildlife, but the cumulative effect of human disturbance on the temporal dynamics of animals has not been quantified. We examined anthropogenic effects on mammal diel activity patterns, conducting a meta-analysis of 76 studies of 62 species from six continents. Our global study revealed a strong effect of humans on daily patterns of wildlife activity. Animals increased their nocturnality by an average factor of 1.36 in response to human disturbance. This finding was consistent across continents, habitats, taxa, and human activities. As the global human footprint expands, temporal avoidance of humans may facilitate human-wildlife coexistence. However, such responses can result in marked shifts away from natural patterns of activity, with consequences for fitness, population persistence, community interactions, and evolution.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6394/1232

Also, because you want evidence, there is evidence of bat behaviour being affected by streetlight illumination, here:

null

Quote

Artificial light puts ecosystem services of frugivorous bats at risk

Daniel Lewanzik

Christian C. Voigt

First published: 10 March 2014

https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12206

 

https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1365-2664.12206

If you go straight to the figures, you will see a very clear change in behaviour when streetlight illumination is in force.

Also, there is evidence of humans affecting tiger populations by their living processes including farming:

Quote

The 21^st century has brought many conservation challenges to the fore. One very important and significant challenge that has evoked considerable scientific interest is the fragmentation of wildlife habitat. With rapidly expanding human populations and other competing land uses, areas that used to be continuous habitat have become broken and fragmented, isolating plant and animal populations contained within them. Habitat fragmentation is usually a time driven process that is innocuously initiated by human habitation or man induced habitat alteration and which eventually accelerates and results in complete isolation of once contiguous habitat. Populations thus isolated face survival pressures through increased competition for food and space and obligated risks in relation to disease outbreaks and episodic calamities such as fire and flood. Over a larger time span, species inhabiting isolated habitats also face the risk of extinction through mechanisms such as excessive inbreeding [1], [2].

The evidence is presented about six key factors which affected tiger movement (e.g. perennial water bodies) and then presented observations and analyses about each one.  You can find the paper here:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0039996

They did not look at some tiger poo and make analytical statements: they performed the field work.

Edited August 11, 2018 by jimmydasaint

[T. McGrath]

1 minute ago, jimmydasaint said:

I see A meta-analysis is an overall view based on other analyses by other researchers.  This marks a review of trends about "nocturnality".

The original paper can be share here:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6394/1232

Also, because you want evidence, there is evidence of bat behaviour being affected by streetlight illumination, here:

null

https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1365-2664.12206

I've read the paper.  If you scroll up, you will see that I provided the URL.

It can be claimed that all the animals north of the Arctic Circle "trend toward nocturnality" after every Summer Solstice.  "Nocturnal" is very much determined by where you are on the planet and the time of year.  All behavior is human behavior, they are just attempting to apply human behavior to non-humans and that is why it will always fail.  It is pure BS.

It should be easy to understand that animal brains do not function the same way as human brains.  Animals with an extremely good sense of smell, for example, are going to be more driven by that sense than humans could ever be.  So to impose any kind of human trait or behavior on anything other than human is silly.  When they attempt to pass it off as science, then it becomes stupid and offensive.  Because this is not what science is about.

[jimmydasaint]

All behaviour is human behaviour? I am now worried! Did you read the two pieces of evidence that were presented by me, including the figures? I would certainly read them prior to such erroneous and hasty posting.  Do you know that circadian rhythms in mammals are controlled in the same way as humans and that melatonin is similarly involved.  Did you know that oxytocin receptors in some mammals determine nurturing behaviour of the young, which may be similar to humans? (I don't know if papers are out about this phenomenon in humans).

I gave you evidence = please take time to read and consider it.  All behaviour is not human behaviour and we certainly get a lot of clues about human behaviour from animal studies (e.g. Pavlov's dogs).

Oh, and Science is about theory/hypothesis followed by observation and analysis. Falsification is a method for reaching objective truths; hence the carefully couched language of most scientific papers.

[T. McGrath]

1 minute ago, jimmydasaint said:

All behaviour is human behaviour? I am now worried! Did you read the two pieces of evidence that were presented by me, including the figures? I would certainly read them prior to such erroneous and hasty posting.  Do you know that circadian rhythms in mammals are controlled in the same way as humans and that melatonin is similarly involved.  Did you know that oxytocin receptors in some mammals determine nurturing behaviour of the young, which may be similar to humans? (I don't know if papers are out about this phenomenon in humans).

I gave you evidence = please take time to read and consider it.  All behaviour is not human behaviour and we certainly get a lot of clues about human behaviour from animal studies (e.g. Pavlov's dogs).

Oh, and Science is about theory/hypothesis followed by observation and analysis. Falsification is a method for reaching objective truths; hence the carefully couched language of most scientific papers.

Yes, all behaviors are human behaviors.  We often apply them to other animals, but the fact remains that we have absolutely no clue what motivates any other species other than our own.  As I said, I read the original paper.  However, I have not read the other paper you posted on the behavior of bats.  No doubt it will be similar to all the other behavioral studies where they create a controlled environment, observe the behavior of the animal, and then draw some conclusions about the behavior of the animal based upon the statistics of their observations.

I do agree that the paper needs to use "carefully couched language."  In the case of the original paper "seems to..." is a perfectly acceptable way of not really drawing any conclusion whatsoever.  "Seems to..." is purely subjective.  So anyone can infer anything they like.

[jimmydasaint]

There are two papers - one on bats, including wild bats in an uncontrolled but closely observed environment. The other is on tracking wild tiger movements in habitats fragmented by humans. These are looking at end behaviours which are measurable and provide evidence.  How could you provide evidence for any behaviour which is not measurable? It would not be considered evidence by you! Evidence is only provided on the end results of behaviours surely!

[T. McGrath]

26 minutes ago, jimmydasaint said:

There are two papers - one on bats, including wild bats in an uncontrolled but closely observed environment. The other is on tracking wild tiger movements in habitats fragmented by humans. These are looking at end behaviours which are measurable and provide evidence.  How could you provide evidence for any behaviour which is not measurable? It would not be considered evidence by you! Evidence is only provided on the end results of behaviours surely!

You have two separate links in your prior post, but they are to the same URL.  The URL regarding the study of wild tiger movements did not make it into that post.  If you post it, I will take a look at it.

When attempting to understand what motivates an animal I try to understand the animal first.  "End behavior" is a misnomer since you are not referring to humans, it should be "end actions" instead.  Simply looking at the end action, or "end behavior," tells you nothing about the motivation of the animal.  If a bear mauls a hiker, for example, your "end behavior" would be that the bear was aggressive.  When the reality may have been that the bear was surprised or acting in what the bear may have perceived as self-defense.  We simply have no idea, and nobody should be claiming that they do.  Which is where that special couching of the language comes in handy.

EDIT:  Check that, I found your post with the tiger study.  I just didn't scroll far enough up.  I'm reading it now.

Edited August 11, 2018 by T. McGrath

[Moontanman]

2 hours ago, T. McGrath said:

 

Anecdotes do not qualify as evidence either.  Animal behavior can be observed, but to attempt to draw any conclusions based upon those observations is completely invalid.  There is absolutely no way any observer can determine what another animal is thinking, why they behave a particular way, or what is influencing their behavior.  It is entirely conjuncture and anthropomorphism.

 

Where do you park your squad car sherlock? 

 

Quote

To use your example, if you take away the hunters deer become over-populated and are forced to resort to inhabit golf courses and housing developments in order to find food.  That is equally as invalid of a conclusion as you assuming they are becoming suddenly very friendly.  The reality is that we do not know what is influencing their behavior.

Yea, it is called reading the paper.  You might try it sometime.  Here is the link:  http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6394/1232

Yes! I can read! What a concept! How about a bit less snarkiness when criticising someone who simply asked for info and acknowledged all the info he had was  "anecdotal" 

Then again from your own link:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6394/1232

Quote

Abstract

Rapid expansion of human activity has driven well-documented shifts in the spatial distribution of wildlife, but the cumulative effect of human disturbance on the temporal dynamics of animals has not been quantified. We examined anthropogenic effects on mammal diel activity patterns, conducting a meta-analysis of 76 studies of 62 species from six continents. Our global study revealed a strong effect of humans on daily patterns of wildlife activity. Animals increased their nocturnality by an average factor of 1.36 in response to human disturbance. This finding was consistent across continents, habitats, taxa, and human activities. As the global human footprint expands, temporal avoidance of humans may facilitate human-wildlife coexistence. However, such responses can result in marked shifts away from natural patterns of activity, with consequences for fitness, population persistence, community interactions, and evolution.

 

Edited August 11, 2018 by Moontanman

[T. McGrath]

35 minutes ago, jimmydasaint said:

There are two papers - one on bats, including wild bats in an uncontrolled but closely observed environment. The other is on tracking wild tiger movements in habitats fragmented by humans. These are looking at end behaviours which are measurable and provide evidence.  How could you provide evidence for any behaviour which is not measurable? It would not be considered evidence by you! Evidence is only provided on the end results of behaviours surely!

I've read the second paper you posted on the management of the wild tigers.  It was a good paper.  Specifically because they did not attempt to associate any behavior to the tigers.  They simply mapped the movements of the tigers, their surrounding terrain and vegetation, and based their recommendations on those findings only.  The paper does not attempt to attribute any human behaviors to the tigers.

[MathGeek]

5 hours ago, jimmydasaint said:

Wow! What a remarkably obtuse answer!

From a quick glance, this looks like a meta-analysis of 76 published studies (all of which are likely to have been peer-reviewed). The opinion reached by at maximum 76 teams of researchers who use the scientific method are likely to be better than you sitting at your computer and trying to rubbish their work. Don't talk complete garbage.  Also, if you are a troll, you are likely to get caught early with your stubborn and near-sighted nonsense.

 

Need to separate the science from the speculation.  The science is that more human activity tends to make mammals more nocturnal.

The speculation is that there is something bad about that.

[Itoero]

14 hours ago, MathGeek said:

Need to separate the science from the speculation.  The science is that more human activity tends to make mammals more nocturnal.

The speculation is that there is something bad about that.

Then  what's your problem with the article? They observe more nocturnal behavior and speculate about possible bad effects.

"The consequences of this shift are still unclear, but scientists suspect it could threaten the survival of several animal populations."

[T. McGrath]

On 8/11/2018 at 2:25 PM, MathGeek said:

Need to separate the science from the speculation.  The science is that more human activity tends to make mammals more nocturnal.

The speculation is that there is something bad about that.

 

16 hours ago, Itoero said:

Then  what's your problem with the article? They observe more nocturnal behavior and speculate about possible bad effects.

"The consequences of this shift are still unclear, but scientists suspect it could threaten the survival of several animal populations."

Do you even bother to read what you write?  You are both talking about speculation and suspicion and yet have the audacity to claim it has something to do with science.  Do either of you even know what science is about?  Science is not about speculation or suspicion.