Critical review of “Flexible habitat selection by cougars in response to anthropogenic development”

Posted on

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320714002791?ref=pdf_download&fr=RR-2&rr=8c11bf51087b236b

Human development has affected large carnivores for centuries. As human development expands these predators have been extirpated from their once vast ranges. Cougars were once found throughout North America but are now restricted almost exclusively to the western part of the continent. Despite this, large predators have shown the ability to persist through a human-dominated landscape with many anthropogenic features. This study aimed to prove that cougars are capable of adjusting their behavior in order to survive and expand their population into these modified environments.

Over the last 20 years, Alberta, Canada has experienced gradual urbanization and population growth. Due to its rural nature and forested landscape it still supports a relatively stable cougar population in the west-central region. Researchers used telemetry collars on 42 cougars to track use of the landscape around anthropogenic features. These features included private lands, towns and industrial infrastructure from the forestry and natural gas industries. Individuals were split into two classes based on their home-range, Rural and Wilderness. Land cover maps with forest edges and continuous forest layers were generated for the landscape. Using GIS, roads, pipelines, seismic lines, and oil and gas well locations were included, buildings were added from satellite images. 

Exponential resource selection functions were used to pinpoint major landscape characteristics that influenced cougar selection. Through a 2-step approach, individual cougar responses were calculated separately and compared amongst themselves, to estimate functional response. Temporal changes were considered with runs of the model for night and day activity. Functional response was assessed through a plot of the top coefficients for each habitat type and the availability of it within each cougar’s home range. The study yielded variable results but some themes were consistent. Cougars selected most consistently for edge and avoided areas of high building density. Cougars were more likely to interact with anthropogenic features at night rather than during the day. Wilderness cougars avoided pipelines, seismic lines, and well-sites at a much higher rate than rural cougars, who may be used to them. Overall, these functional responses show that “cougars demonstrated reduced sensitivity in their selection of habitat near some anthropogenic features” in areas of high human development.

I think the classification of rural and wilderness cougars is a key highlight of this study. Animals that are more exposed to people will behave differently than more isolated species of the same species, so this is something they could not leave out. The anthropogenic features were well laid out and did a good job of describing the urban aspects of the landscape. I think agricultural infrastructure could’ve been focused on as well, especially in areas where cougars may kill livestock. The split of day and night also provides a deeper layer to the results though I am curious if they could have expanded further into exact periods such as dusk and dawn. The data analysis is well done and allowed the researchers to really justify their conclusions. 

Their discussion section does a nice job of relating their findings to those of other similar studies of cougars in other areas of the world. The study highlights that while cougars do avoid human development and activity, they may be able to adjust their selective behavior to coexist with it. The researchers suggest that ongoing conservation will only be supported if these selection thresholds are identified and kept in check. Humans must learn to live with large carnivores around them as their habitats experience increasing decline.

Knopff A.A, Knopff K.H, Boyce M.S, St. Clair C.C. 2014. Flexible habitat selection by cougars in response to anthropogenic development. Biological Conservation 178:136–145. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320714002791?ref=pdf_download&fr=RR-2&rr=8c11bf51087b236b 

Critical review of “The ecological impact of city lighting scenarios: exploring gap crossing thresholds for urban bats”

Posted on

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.12884

As urbanization continues around the world wildlife are affected by a variety of artificial factors. Artificial lighting is a strong factor that affects nocturnal wildlife in urban areas. Bats in particular can be impacted by artificial lighting, as it may disrupt their movement and behavior. The common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) is an urban dwelling bat commonly found in cities of the United Kingdom. Researchers in this study explored the relationship between pipistrelle movement between tree cover gaps and crossing distance and light intensity. 

Through stratified sampling in England’s West Midlands, gaps in urban tree cover were selected for surveying. These gaps varied in distance and lighting level and were surveyed using bat detectors and researchers who recorded their flight path. After surveying, logistic regression models were generated to identify minimum lighting levels required to create a barrier effect. These thresholds modelled as a function of crossing distance. The model was applied to Birmingham, England maps of tree cover and artificial lighting to create a model of landscape resistance to bat movement due to light. Future urban lighting scenarios were considered through these spatial models. The majority of pipistrelles crossed in the darker parts of the gaps indicating an aversion to light pollution. Light requirements to create a barrier reduced as crossing distances increased. 

A strength of this paper is the layout of the methods section. It is split into 5 distinct subsections that clearly describe the study. Each subsection is very thorough and explains the reasoning behind many of the team’s decisions. I think the location of the study was a good choice because it can be generalized across the UK, as many of the urban centers have similar structural layouts. The model can be applied to maps of different cities for further research. The study could have benefitted from a second city with a more rural landscape to compare the differences in bat cover gap usage. 

I think the potential lighting scenario models should have been further explored with a few more scenarios. They only looked at a Bright City and Dark City model in their analysis. If a moderately lit city model was included additional conclusions could have been drawn. Additional species could have been included as well to add more complexity to the results. The results section is very concise and clearly explains their findings. The discussion is quite thorough and does a good job of looking to the future. Further research can explore the dimming of artificial light sources during periods of high wildlife activity. Other nocturnal wildlife species should also be studied to assess their tolerance and reactions to artificial light.

Hale, J.D., Fairbrass, A.J., Matthews, T.J., Davies, G. and Sadler, J.P. (2015), The ecological impact of city lighting scenarios: exploring gap crossing thresholds for urban bats. Glob Change Biol, 21: 2467-2478. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12884

Critical review of “Urban foxes are bolder but not more innovative than their rural conspecifics”

Posted on

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.