https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347223001689?ref=cra_js_challenge&fr=RR-1
Urbanization is the most rapid form of landscape transformation the world has ever seen. This expansion of urban areas forces wildlife to adjust their behavior in order to survive. One species that has had great success living around urban areas is the red fox (Vulpes vulpes). Recent viewpoints on these widespread carnivores may paint them as pests due to their opportunistic foraging habits. However, it is unknown whether urban adjusted foxes are in fact that much bolder and smarter than their rural counterparts, when foraging for food. This study aimed to answer this question and give better context for how we perceive urban red foxes.
This study was conducted across 200 locations in England and Scotland. Across these locations, food-related objects were deployed for fox interaction. There were 8 unique styles of objects that required problem-solving to access the food. Trail cameras were used to monitor fox behavior around the objects. A principal component analysis of urban and rural landscape variables was used to analyze the data. The researchers found that “urbanization was significantly and positively related to the likelihood of foxes touching, but not exploiting, the objects”. They concluded because of this that urban foxes are bolder, but not more innovative than their rural counterparts.
One thing I think this paper does really well is the methodological descriptions of the experiment. It is very clear on the variables and behaviors that count as acknowledgement and exploitation. It is also very strong in accounting for its own limitations. For example, six months after the initial testing, researchers revisited 30 sites and placed three different food samples without an object to act as a control for potential food preference. The methods are very thorough and numerous variables are taken into account. One variable the paper mentions they left out but I think would be very useful is the individuality of each fox. I think if individual foxes were differentiated it would have been very interesting to see if some foxes were more innovative than others. This would also make up for a potential data skew due to individuals displaying innovative behavior at multiple locations.
The results section is also explained well but I do not agree with the outline of information. It starts with the results of the secondary food test and I think this would be better towards the end of the section after the broader results were discussed. The statistical analyses and principal component analysis sections are split by findings of the different variables. I think the flow would be maintained if these two sections followed one another because they discuss similar aspects of the study.
The discussion is very thorough and organized in a fluid way. I really like the section citing similar studies that yielded varying results, it does a nice job of specifying just how nuanced and complex urban wildlife behavior is across species. It solidifies its point that foxes are likely not the “pests” they are sometimes viewed to be by people. Further research should follow individual foxes of varying characteristics such as age, size, sex, etc. This will allow researchers to better differentiate urban from rural foxes and to observe individual innovation.
Morton F.B, Gartner M, Norrie E, Haddou Y, Soulsbury C.D, Adaway K.A. 2023. Urban foxes are bolder but not more innovative than their rural conspecifics. Animal Behaviour 203:101–113.