Mammals adjust diel activity across gradients of urbanization

  1. Travis Gallo  Is a corresponding author
  2. Mason Fidino
  3. Brian Gerber
  4. Adam A Ahlers
  5. Julia L Angstmann
  6. Max Amaya
  7. Amy L Concilio
  8. David Drake
  9. Danielle Gay
  10. Elizabeth W Lehrer
  11. Maureen H Murray
  12. Travis J Ryan
  13. Colleen Cassady St. Clair
  14. Carmen M Salsbury
  15. Heather A Sander
  16. Theodore Stankowich
  17. Jaque Williamson
  18. J Amy Belaire
  19. Kelly Simon
  20. Seth B Magle
  1. George Mason University, United States
  2. Lincoln Park Zoo, United States
  3. University of Rhode Island, United States
  4. Kansas State University, United States
  5. Butler University, United States
  6. California State University, Long Beach, United States
  7. St. Edward's University, United States
  8. University of Wisconsin-Madison, United States
  9. City of Austin, United States
  10. University of Alberta, Canada
  11. University of Iowa, United States
  12. Brandywine Zoo, United States
  13. The Nature Conservancy, United States
  14. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, United States

Abstract

Time is a fundamental component of ecological processes. How animal behavior changes over time has been explored through well-known ecological theories like niche partitioning and predator-prey dynamics. Yet, changes in animal behavior within the shorter 24-hour light-dark cycle have largely gone unstudied. Understanding if an animal can adjust their temporal activity to mitigate or adapt to environmental change has become a recent topic of discussion and is important for effective wildlife management and conservation. While spatial habitat is a fundamental consideration in wildlife management and conservation, temporal habitat is often ignored. We formulated a temporal resource selection model to quantify the diel behavior of eight mammal species across ten U.S. cities. We found high variability in diel activity patterns within and among species and species-specific correlations between diel activity and human population density, impervious land cover, available greenspace, vegetation cover, and mean daily temperature. We also found that some species may modulate temporal behaviors to manage both natural and anthropogenic risks. Our results highlight the complexity with which temporal activity patterns interact with local environmental characteristics, and suggest that urban mammals may use time along the 24-hour cycle to reduce risk, adapt, and therefore persist, and in some cases thrive, in human-dominated ecosystems.

Data availability

All related data and R scripts have been deposited at Dryad: https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.fxpnvx0tb

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Travis Gallo

    College of Science, George Mason University, Fairfax, United States
    For correspondence
    hgallo@gmu.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2877-9848
  2. Mason Fidino

    Urban Wildlife Institute, Conservation and Science Department, Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Brian Gerber

    Department of Natural Resource Science, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9285-9784
  4. Adam A Ahlers

    Department of Horticulture and Natural Resources, Kansas State University, Manhattan, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Julia L Angstmann

    Department of Biological Sciences, Butler University, Indianapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Max Amaya

    Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Long Beach, Long Beach, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Amy L Concilio

    Department of Environmental Science and Policy, St. Edward's University, Austin, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. David Drake

    Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Danielle Gay

    Austin Parks and Recreation, City of Austin, Austin, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Elizabeth W Lehrer

    Urban Wildlife Institute, Conservation and Science Department, Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Maureen H Murray

    Urban Wildlife Institute, Conservation and Science Department, Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Travis J Ryan

    Department of Biological Sciences, Butler University, Indianapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2039-5989
  13. Colleen Cassady St. Clair

    Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Carmen M Salsbury

    Department of Biological Sciences, Butler University, Indianapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Heather A Sander

    Department of Geographical and Sustainability Sciences, University of Iowa, Iowa City, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Theodore Stankowich

    Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Long Beach, Long Beach, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Jaque Williamson

    Department of Education and Conservation, Brandywine Zoo, Wilmington, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. J Amy Belaire

    The Nature Conservancy, Austin, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Kelly Simon

    Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9694-5548
  20. Seth B Magle

    Urban Wildlife Institute, Conservation and Science Department, Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Funding

Abra Prentice-Wilkin Foundation

  • Travis Gallo
  • Mason Fidino
  • Elizabeth W Lehrer
  • Maureen H Murray
  • Seth B Magle

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Metrics

  • 4,210
    views
  • 519
    downloads
  • 44
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Travis Gallo
  2. Mason Fidino
  3. Brian Gerber
  4. Adam A Ahlers
  5. Julia L Angstmann
  6. Max Amaya
  7. Amy L Concilio
  8. David Drake
  9. Danielle Gay
  10. Elizabeth W Lehrer
  11. Maureen H Murray
  12. Travis J Ryan
  13. Colleen Cassady St. Clair
  14. Carmen M Salsbury
  15. Heather A Sander
  16. Theodore Stankowich
  17. Jaque Williamson
  18. J Amy Belaire
  19. Kelly Simon
  20. Seth B Magle
(2022)
Mammals adjust diel activity across gradients of urbanization
eLife 11:e74756.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.74756

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.74756

Further reading

    1. Ecology
    Laura Fargeot, Camille Poesy ... Blanchet Simon
    Research Article

    Understanding the relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning stands as a cornerstone in ecological research. Extensive evidence now underscores the profound impact of species loss on the stability and dynamics of ecosystem functions. However, it remains unclear whether the loss of genetic diversity within key species yields similar consequences. Here, we delve into the intricate relationship between species diversity, genetic diversity, and ecosystem functions across three trophic levels – primary producers, primary consumers, and secondary consumers – in natural aquatic ecosystems. Our investigation involves estimating species diversity and genome-wide diversity – gauged within three pivotal species – within each trophic level, evaluating seven key ecosystem functions, and analyzing the magnitude of the relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem functions (BEFs). We found that, overall, the absolute effect size of genetic diversity on ecosystem functions mirrors that of species diversity in natural ecosystems. We nonetheless unveil a striking dichotomy: while genetic diversity was positively correlated with various ecosystem functions, species diversity displays a negative correlation with these functions. These intriguing antagonist effects of species and genetic diversity persist across the three trophic levels (underscoring its systemic nature), but were apparent only when BEFs were assessed within trophic levels rather than across them. This study reveals the complexity of predicting the consequences of genetic and species diversity loss under natural conditions, and emphasizes the need for further mechanistic models integrating these two facets of biodiversity.

    1. Ecology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Justine Boutry, Océane Rieu ... Fréderic Thomas
    Research Article

    While host phenotypic manipulation by parasites is a widespread phenomenon, whether tumors, which can be likened to parasite entities, can also manipulate their hosts is not known. Theory predicts that this should nevertheless be the case, especially when tumors (neoplasms) are transmissible. We explored this hypothesis in a cnidarian Hydra model system, in which spontaneous tumors can occur in the lab, and lineages in which such neoplastic cells are vertically transmitted (through host budding) have been maintained for over 15 years. Remarkably, the hydras with long-term transmissible tumors show an unexpected increase in the number of their tentacles, allowing for the possibility that these neoplastic cells can manipulate the host. By experimentally transplanting healthy as well as neoplastic tissues derived from both recent and long-term transmissible tumors, we found that only the long-term transmissible tumors were able to trigger the growth of additional tentacles. Also, supernumerary tentacles, by permitting higher foraging efficiency for the host, were associated with an increased budding rate, thereby favoring the vertical transmission of tumors. To our knowledge, this is the first evidence that, like true parasites, transmissible tumors can evolve strategies to manipulate the phenotype of their host.