↓ Skip to main content

The influence of human disturbance on wildlife nocturnality

Overview of attention for article published in Science, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
680 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1268 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The influence of human disturbance on wildlife nocturnality
Published in
Science, June 2018
DOI 10.1126/science.aar7121
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kaitlyn M Gaynor, Cheryl E Hojnowski, Neil H Carter, Justin S Brashares

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 408 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,268 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1268 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 225 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 221 17%
Student > Bachelor 162 13%
Researcher 157 12%
Other 41 3%
Other 165 13%
Unknown 297 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 452 36%
Environmental Science 286 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 27 2%
Unspecified 27 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 2%
Other 104 8%
Unknown 351 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1817. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 February 2024.
All research outputs
#5,487
of 25,398,331 outputs
Outputs from Science
#304
of 82,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84
of 341,856 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science
#11
of 1,177 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,398,331 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 82,955 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 65.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,856 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,177 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.