Mammals show faster recovery from capture and tagging in human-disturbed landscapes.
Journal
Nature communications
ISSN: 2041-1723
Titre abrégé: Nat Commun
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101528555
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Sep 2024
15 Sep 2024
Historique:
received:
23
01
2024
accepted:
29
08
2024
medline:
16
9
2024
pubmed:
16
9
2024
entrez:
15
9
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39278967
doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-52381-8
pii: 10.1038/s41467-024-52381-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
8079Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Hebblewhite, M. & Haydon, D. T. Distinguishing technology from biology: a critical review of the use of GPS telemetry data in ecology. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 365, 2303–2312 (2010).
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0087
Nathan, R. et al. A movement ecology paradigm for unifying organismal movement research. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 19052–19059 (2008).
pubmed: 19060196
pmcid: 2614714
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0800375105
Jeltsch, F. et al. Integrating movement ecology with biodiversity research—exploring new avenues to address spatiotemporal biodiversity dynamics. Mov. Ecol. 1, 6 (2013).
pubmed: 25709820
pmcid: 4337763
doi: 10.1186/2051-3933-1-6
Schlägel, U. E. et al. Movement-mediated community assembly and coexistence. Biol. Rev. 95, 1073–1096 (2020).
pubmed: 32627362
doi: 10.1111/brv.12600
Allen, A. M. & Singh, N. J. Linking movement ecology with wildlife management and conservation. Front. Ecol. Evol. 3, 155 (2016).
Handcock, R. et al. Monitoring animal behaviour and environmental interactions using wireless sensor networks, GPS collars and satellite remote sensing. Sensors 9, 3586–3603 (2009).
pubmed: 22412327
pmcid: 3297144
doi: 10.3390/s90503586
Kays, R., Crofoot, M. C., Jetz, W. & Wikelski, M. Terrestrial animal tracking as an eye on life and planet. Science 348, 6340 (2015).
Jetz, W., Tertitski, G., Kays, R., Mueller, U. & Wikelski, M. Biological earth observation with animal sensors. Trend. Ecol. Evol. 37, 719–724 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2022.04.012
Nathan, R. et al. Big-data approaches lead to an increased understanding of the ecology of animal movement. Science 375, eabg1780 (2022).
Wilmers, C. C. et al. The golden age of bio-logging: how animal-borne sensors are advancing the frontiers of ecology. Ecology 96, 1741–1753 (2015).
pubmed: 26378296
doi: 10.1890/14-1401.1
Hughey, L. F., Hein, A. M., Strandburg-Peshkin, A. & Jensen, F. H. Challenges and solutions for studying collective animal behaviour in the wild. Philos.Trans. R Soc. B Biol. Sci. 373, 20170005 (2018).
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2017.0005
Wilson, R. P. et al. Estimates for energy expenditure in free-living animals using acceleration proxies: a reappraisal. J. Animal Ecol. 89, 161–172 (2020).
doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.13040
Qasem, L. et al. Tri-axial dynamic acceleration as a proxy for animal energy expenditure; should we be summing values or calculating the vector? PLoS ONE 7, e31187 (2012).
pubmed: 22363576
pmcid: 3281952
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031187
Martín López, L. M., Miller, P. J. O., Aguilar de Soto, N. & Johnson, M. Gait switches in deep-diving beaked whales: biomechanical strategies for long-duration dives. J. Exp. Biol. 218, 1325–1338 (2015).
pubmed: 25954042
doi: 10.1242/jeb.106013
Gunner, R. M. et al. A new direction for differentiating animal activity based on measuring angular velocity about the yaw axis. Ecol. Evol. 10, 7872–7886 (2020).
pubmed: 32760571
pmcid: 7391348
doi: 10.1002/ece3.6515
Wilson, R. P. et al. Moving towards acceleration for estimates of activity-specific metabolic rate in free-living animals: the case of the cormorant. J. Animal Ecol. 75, 1081–1090 (2006).
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01127.x
Gleiss, A. C., Wilson, R. P. & Shepard, E. L. C. Making overall dynamic body acceleration work: on the theory of acceleration as a proxy for energy expenditure. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2, 23–33 (2011).
doi: 10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00057.x
Cooke, S. J. et al. Biotelemetry: a mechanistic approach to ecology. Trend Ecol. Evol. 19, 334–343 (2004).
doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2004.04.003
McGowan, J. et al. Integrating research using animal-borne telemetry with the needs of conservation management. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 423–429 (2017).
doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12755
Godfrey, J. & Bryant, D. Effects of radio transmitters: review of recent radio-tracking studies. In Conservation Applications of Mmeasuring Energy Expenditure of New Zealand Birds: Assessing Habitat Quality and Costs of Carrying Radio Transmitters. (ed. Williams, M.) 83–95 (Department of Conservation, 2003).
Mech, D. L. & Barber, S. M. A Critique of Wildlife Radio-Tracking and Its Use in National Parks: a Report to the National Park Service, US Geological Survey. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/93895 (2002).
Ropert-Coudert, Y. & Wilson, R. Subjectivity in bio-logging science: do logged data mislead? Mem. Nat. Inst. Polar Res. 58, 23–33 (2004).
Healy, M., Chiaradia, A., Kirkwood, R. & Dann, P. Balance: a neglected factor when attaching external devices to penguins. Memoirs Nat. Inst. Polar Res. Special Issue, 179–182 (2004).
Powell, R. A. & Proulx, G. Trapping and marking terrestrial mammals for research: integrating ethics, performance criteria, techniques, and common sense. ILAR J. 44, 259–276 (2003).
pubmed: 13130157
doi: 10.1093/ilar.44.4.259
Iossa, G., Soulsbury, C. & Harris, S. Mammal trapping: a review of animal welfare standards of killing and restraining traps. Animal Welfare 16, 335–352 (2007).
doi: 10.1017/S0962728600027159
Morellet, N. et al. The effect of capture on ranging behaviour and activity of the European Roe deer (Capreolus capreolus). Wildlife Biol. 15, 278–287 (2009).
doi: 10.2981/08-084
Northrup, J. M., Anderson, C. R. & Wittemyer, G. Effects of helicopter capture and handling on movement behavior of mule deer. J. Wildlife Manag. 78, 731–738 (2014).
doi: 10.1002/jwmg.705
Brogi, R. et al. Capture effects in wild boar: a multifaceted behavioural investigation. Wildlife Biol. 2019, 1–10 (2019).
Theil, P. K., Coutant, A. E. & Olesen, C. R. Seasonal changes and activity-dependent variation in heart rate of Roe deer. J. Mammal. 85, 245–253 (2004).
doi: 10.1644/1545-1542(2004)085<0245:SCAAVI>2.0.CO;2
Grandin, T. & Shivley, C. How farm animals react and perceive stressful situations such as handling, restraint, and transport. Animals 5, 1233–1251 (2015).
pubmed: 26633523
pmcid: 4693213
doi: 10.3390/ani5040409
Bergvall, U. A. et al. Settle down! ranging behaviour responses of Roe deer to different capture and release methods. Animals 11, 3299 (2021).
pubmed: 34828030
pmcid: 8614535
doi: 10.3390/ani11113299
Cattet, M., Boulanger, J., Stenhouse, G., Powell, R. A. & Reynolds-Hogland, M. J. An evaluation of long-term capture effects in ursids: implications for wildlife welfare and research. J. Mammal. 89, 973–990 (2008).
doi: 10.1644/08-MAMM-A-095.1
Alibhai, S. K., Jewell, Z. C. & Towindo, S. S. Effects of immobilization on fertility in female black rhino (Diceros bicornis). J. Zool. 253, 333–345 (2001).
doi: 10.1017/S0952836901000309
Harcourt, R. G., Turner, E., Hall, A., Waas, J. R. & Hindell, M. Effects of capture stress on free-ranging, reproductively active male Weddell seals. J. Comp. Physiol. A 196, 147–154 (2010).
doi: 10.1007/s00359-009-0501-0
Salvo, A. D. Chemical and physical restraint of African wild animals. J. Wildlife Dis. 58, 951–953 (2022).
Pelletier, F., Hogg, J. T. & Festa-Bianchet, M. Effect of chemical immobilization on social status of bighorn rams. Animal Behav. 67, 1163–1165 (2004).
doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.07.009
Brivio, F., Grignolio, S., Sica, N., Cerise, S. & Bassano, B. Assessing the impact of capture on wild animals: the case study of chemical immobilisation on Alpine ibex. PLoS ONE 10, e0130957 (2015).
pubmed: 26111118
pmcid: 4482404
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130957
Arnemo, J. M. et al. Risk of capture-related mortality in large free-ranging mammals: experiences from Scandinavia. Wildlife Biol. 12, 109–113 (2006).
doi: 10.2981/0909-6396(2006)12[109:ROCMIL]2.0.CO;2
Jacques, C. N. et al. Evaluating ungulate mortality associated with helicopter net-gun captures in the Northern great plains. J. Wildlife Manag. 73, 1282–1291 (2009).
doi: 10.2193/2009-039
Wilson, R. P. et al. Animal lifestyle affects acceptable mass limits for attached tags. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 288, 20212005 (2021).
McIntyre, T. Animal telemetry: tagging effects. Science 349, 596–597 (2015).
pubmed: 26250677
doi: 10.1126/science.349.6248.596-b
Brooks, C., Bonyongo, C. & Harris, S. Effects of global positioning system collar weight on zebra behavior and location error. J. Wildlife Manag. 72, 527–534 (2008).
doi: 10.2193/2007-061
Stabach, J. A. et al. Short-term effects of GPS collars on the activity, behavior, and adrenal response of scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx dammah). PLoS ONE 15, e0221843 (2020).
pubmed: 32045413
pmcid: 7012457
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221843
Wilson, R. P. & McMahon, C. R. Measuring devices on wild animals: what constitutes acceptable practice? Front. Ecol. Environ. 4, 147–154 (2006).
doi: 10.1890/1540-9295(2006)004[0147:MDOWAW]2.0.CO;2
van de Bunte, W., Weerman, J. & Hof, A. R. Potential effects of GPS collars on the behaviour of two red pandas (Ailurus fulgens) in Rotterdam Zoo. PLoS ONE 16, e0252456 (2021).
pubmed: 34086742
pmcid: 8177435
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252456
Becciolini, V., Lanini, F. & Ponzetta, M. P. Impact of capture and chemical immobilization on the spatial behaviour of red deer Cervus elaphus hinds. Wildlife Biol. 2019, wlb.00499 (2019).
Mortensen, R. M. & Rosell, F. Long-term capture and handling effects on body condition, reproduction and survival in a semi-aquatic mammal. Sci. Rep. 10, 17886 (2020).
pubmed: 33087816
pmcid: 7578049
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-74933-w
Chi, D., Chester, D., Ranger, W. & Gilbert, B. Effects of capture procedures on black bear activity at an Alaskan Salmon stream. Ursus 10, 563–569 (1998).
Hawkins, P. Bio-logging and animal welfare: practical refinements. Mem. Natl Inst. Polar Res. Spec. Issue 58, 58–68 (2004).
Gehrt, S. D., Anchor, C. & White, L. A. Home range and landscape use of coyotes in a metropolitan landscape: conflict or coexistence? J. Mammal. 90, 1045–1057 (2009).
doi: 10.1644/08-MAMM-A-277.1
Prange, S., Gehrt, S. D. & Wiggers, E. P. Influences of anthropogenic resources on Raccoon (Procyon lotor) movements and spatial distribution. J. Mammal. 85, 483–490 (2004).
doi: 10.1644/BOS-121
Samia, D. S. M., Nakagawa, S., Nomura, F., Rangel, T. F. & Blumstein, D. T. Increased tolerance to humans among disturbed wildlife. Nat. Commun. 6, 8877 (2015).
pubmed: 26568451
doi: 10.1038/ncomms9877
Tucker, M. A. et al. Moving in the anthropocene: global reductions in terrestrial mammalian movements. Science 359, 466–469 (2018).
pubmed: 29371471
doi: 10.1126/science.aam9712
Ciuti, S. et al. Effects of humans on behaviour of wildlife exceed those of natural predators in a landscape of fear. PLoS ONE 7, e50611 (2012).
pubmed: 23226330
pmcid: 3509092
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0050611
Gaynor, K. M., Hojnowski, C. E., Carter, N. H. & Brashares, J. S. The influence of human disturbance on wildlife nocturnality. Science 360, 1232–1235 (2018).
pubmed: 29903973
doi: 10.1126/science.aar7121
Chinnadurai, S. K., Strahl-Heldreth, D., Fiorello, C. V. & Harms, C. A. Best-practice guidelines for field-based surgery and anesthesia of free-ranging wildlife. I. Anesthesia and analgesia. J. Wildlife Dis. 52, S14–S27 (2016).
doi: 10.7589/52.2S.S14
Neumann, W., Ericsson, G., Dettki, H. & Arnemo, J. M. Effect of immobilizations on the activity and space use of female moose (Alces alces). Can. J. Zool. 89, 1013–1018 (2011).
doi: 10.1139/z11-076
Woodroffe, R. & Vincent, A. Mother’s little helpers: patterns of male care in mammals. Trend. Ecol. Evol. 9, 294–297 (1994).
doi: 10.1016/0169-5347(94)90033-7
Roche, D. G., Careau, V. & Binning, S. A. Demystifying animal ‘personality’ (or not): why individual variation matters to experimental biologists. J. Exp. Biol. 219, 3832–3843 (2016).
Sloan Wilson, D., Clark, A. B., Coleman, K. & Dearstyne, T. Shyness and boldness in humans and other animals. Trend. Ecol. Evol. 9, 442–446 (1994).
doi: 10.1016/0169-5347(94)90134-1
Schirmer, A., Herde, A., Eccard, J. A. & Dammhahn, M. Individuals in space: personality-dependent space use, movement and microhabitat use facilitate individual spatial niche specialization. Oecologia 189, 647–660 (2019).
pubmed: 30826867
pmcid: 6418052
doi: 10.1007/s00442-019-04365-5
Lingle, S. & Pellis, S. Fight or flight? antipredator behavior and the escalation of coyote encounters with deer. Oecologia 131, 154–164 (2002).
pubmed: 28547505
doi: 10.1007/s00442-001-0858-4
Quick, J. C. & Spielberger, C. D. Walter Bradford Cannon: pioneer of stress research. Int. J. Stress Manag. 1, 141–143 (1994).
doi: 10.1007/BF01857607
Bracha, S. H. Freeze, flight, fight, fright, faint: adaptationist perspectives on the acute stress response spectrum. CNS Spectr. 9, 679–685 (2004).
pubmed: 15337864
doi: 10.1017/S1092852900001954
Tablado, Z. & Jenni, L. Determinants of uncertainty in wildlife responses to human disturbance. Biol. Rev. 92, 216–233 (2017).
pubmed: 26467755
doi: 10.1111/brv.12224
Santini, L. et al. One strategy does not fit all: determinants of urban adaptation in mammals. Ecol. Lett. 22, 365–376 (2019).
pubmed: 30575254
doi: 10.1111/ele.13199
Milner, J. M., Van Beest, F. M., Schmidt, K. T., Brook, R. K. & Storaas, T. To feed or not to feed? evidence of the intended and unintended effects of feeding wild ungulates. J. Wildlife Manag. 78, 1322–1334 (2014).
doi: 10.1002/jwmg.798
Alberti, M. et al. Global urban signatures of phenotypic change in animal and plant populations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 114, 8951–8956 (2017).
pubmed: 28049817
pmcid: 5576774
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1606034114
Tucker, M. A. et al. Behavioral responses of terrestrial mammals to COVID-19 lockdowns. Science 380, 1059–1064 (2023).
pubmed: 37289888
doi: 10.1126/science.abo6499
Erb, P. L., McShea, W. J. & Guralnick, R. P. Anthropogenic influences on macro-level mammal occupancy in the Appalachian trail corridor. PLoS ONE 7, e42574 (2012).
pubmed: 22880038
pmcid: 3412793
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042574
Tuomainen, U. & Candolin, U. Behavioural responses to human-induced environmental change. Biol. Rev. 86, 640–657 (2011).
pubmed: 20977599
doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2010.00164.x
Gaynor, K. M. et al. An applied ecology of fear framework: linking theory to conservation practice. Animal Conserv. 24, 308–321 (2021).
doi: 10.1111/acv.12629
Martínez-Abraín, A., Quevedo, M. & Serrano, D. Translocation in relict shy-selected animal populations: program success versus prevention of wildlife-human conflict. Biol. Conserv. 268, 109519 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109519
Gallagher, C. A., Grimm, V., Kyhn, L. A., Kinze, C. C. & Nabe-Nielsen, J. Movement and seasonal energetics mediate vulnerability to disturbance in marine mammal populations. Am. Nat. 197, 296–311 (2021).
pubmed: 33625969
doi: 10.1086/712798
Nabe-Nielsen, J. et al. Predicting the impacts of anthropogenic disturbances on marine populations. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12563 (2018).
Pirotta, E. et al. Understanding the population consequences of disturbance. Ecol. Evol. 8, 9934–9946 (2018).
Wikelski, M., Davidson, S. C. & Kays, R. The Movebank Data Repository. www.movebank.org (2020).
Kranstauber, B., Smolla, M. & Scharf, A. Move: Visualizing and Analyzing Animal Track Data. https://cran.r-project.org/package=move (2020).
Scharf, A. moveACC: Visualitation and Analysis of Acceleration Data (Mainly for eObs Tags). https://gitlab.com/anneks/moveACC/ (2018).
Calenge, C. The package “adehabitat” for the R software: A tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecol. Model. 197, 516–519 (2006).
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.03.017
McGowan, P. J. K. Mapping the terrestrial human footprint. Nature 537, 172–173 (2016).
pubmed: 27604944
doi: 10.1038/537172a
Venter, O. et al. Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nat. Commun. 7, 12558 (2016).
pubmed: 27552116
pmcid: 4996975
doi: 10.1038/ncomms12558
Wood, S. N. Generalized Additive Models 2nd edn, Vol. 496 (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2017).
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).
Faurby, S. et al. PHYLACINE 1.2: the phylogenetic Atlas of mammal macroecology. Ecology 99, 2626–2626 (2018).
pubmed: 29989146
doi: 10.1002/ecy.2443
Barton, K. MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. R Package Version 1.15.6. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/MuMIn/MuMIn.pdf (2016).
Urbano, F. & Cagnacci, F. Data management and sharing for collaborative science: lessons learnt from the euromammals iInitiative. Front. Ecol. Evol. 9, 727023 (2021).
Gorelick, N. et al. Google earth engine: planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sens. Environ. 202, 18–27 (2017).