| 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
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 410 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 78 | 19% |
| United Kingdom | 33 | 8% |
| Canada | 20 | 5% |
| Spain | 14 | 3% |
| Germany | 8 | 2% |
| Mexico | 7 | 2% |
| Japan | 7 | 2% |
| Australia | 6 | 1% |
| Colombia | 6 | 1% |
| Other | 61 | 15% |
| Unknown | 170 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 267 | 65% |
| Scientists | 122 | 30% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 13 | 3% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,218 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1218 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 221 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 219 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 161 | 13% |
| Researcher | 152 | 12% |
| Other | 40 | 3% |
| Other | 132 | 11% |
| Unknown | 293 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 447 | 37% |
| Environmental Science | 276 | 23% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 27 | 2% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 1% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 15 | 1% |
| Other | 90 | 7% |
| Unknown | 346 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1797. 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 14 November 2023.
All research outputs
#5,393
of 24,878,531 outputs
Outputs from Science
#301
of 80,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83
of 334,771 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science
#10
of 1,020 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,878,531 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 80,280 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 64.8. 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 334,771 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 1,020 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.