Comparing fear responses of two lizard species across habitats varying in human impact

Q2 Social Sciences Journal of Urban Ecology Pub Date : 2024-02-01 DOI:10.1093/jue/juae002
Breanna J. Putman, M. Rensel, B. Schlinger, Susannah French, D. Blumstein, Gregory B Pauly
{"title":"Comparing fear responses of two lizard species across habitats varying in human impact","authors":"Breanna J. Putman, M. Rensel, B. Schlinger, Susannah French, D. Blumstein, Gregory B Pauly","doi":"10.1093/jue/juae002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Animals that are successful in urban habitats often have reduced antipredator responses toward people (sometimes called “fear” responses). However, few studies test whether sympatric species differ in their responses to humans, which may explain differing sensitivities to urbanization. Here, we quantified the behavioral and physiological responses to humans in two lizard species, side-blotched lizards (Uta stansburiana) and western fence lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis), across three different habitat types that vary in human impact: natural habitats with low levels of human activity, natural habitats with high levels of human activity, and urban habitats. We found that side-blotched lizards had longer flight initiation distances, were found closer to a refuge, and were more likely to hide than fence lizards, behaviors that could indicate greater fearfulness. Both lizard species were found closer to a refuge and were also more likely to hide in the urban habitat than in the natural habitat with low human impact, which could represent adaptive behaviors for increased risks in urban areas (e.g. cats). Western fence lizards exhibited lower body sizes and conditions in the habitats with moderate and high levels of human activity, whereas these traits did not differ among habitats in side-blotched lizards. Baseline and stress-induced corticosterone concentrations did not differ across habitats for both species, suggesting that human-impacted habitats were not stressful or that lizards had undergone habituation-like processes in these habitats. Taken together, our results highlight the importance of standardized measurements across multiple species in the same habitats to understand differential responses to human-induced environmental change.","PeriodicalId":37022,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Urban Ecology","volume":"962 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Urban Ecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jue/juae002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Animals that are successful in urban habitats often have reduced antipredator responses toward people (sometimes called “fear” responses). However, few studies test whether sympatric species differ in their responses to humans, which may explain differing sensitivities to urbanization. Here, we quantified the behavioral and physiological responses to humans in two lizard species, side-blotched lizards (Uta stansburiana) and western fence lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis), across three different habitat types that vary in human impact: natural habitats with low levels of human activity, natural habitats with high levels of human activity, and urban habitats. We found that side-blotched lizards had longer flight initiation distances, were found closer to a refuge, and were more likely to hide than fence lizards, behaviors that could indicate greater fearfulness. Both lizard species were found closer to a refuge and were also more likely to hide in the urban habitat than in the natural habitat with low human impact, which could represent adaptive behaviors for increased risks in urban areas (e.g. cats). Western fence lizards exhibited lower body sizes and conditions in the habitats with moderate and high levels of human activity, whereas these traits did not differ among habitats in side-blotched lizards. Baseline and stress-induced corticosterone concentrations did not differ across habitats for both species, suggesting that human-impacted habitats were not stressful or that lizards had undergone habituation-like processes in these habitats. Taken together, our results highlight the importance of standardized measurements across multiple species in the same habitats to understand differential responses to human-induced environmental change.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较两种蜥蜴在不同人类影响的生境中的恐惧反应
在城市栖息地生活成功的动物通常会减少对人类的反捕食反应(有时称为 "恐惧 "反应)。然而,很少有研究测试同域物种对人类的反应是否不同,这可能解释了对城市化的不同敏感性。在这里,我们量化了两种蜥蜴--侧斑蜥蜴(Uta stansburiana)和西部栅栏蜥蜴(Sceloporus occidentalis)在三种不同栖息地类型中对人类的行为和生理反应,这三种栖息地类型受人类影响的程度各不相同:人类活动程度低的自然栖息地、人类活动程度高的自然栖息地和城市栖息地。我们发现,侧斑蜥蜴的飞行起始距离更长,更靠近避难所,而且比栅栏蜥蜴更容易躲藏,这些行为可能表明侧斑蜥蜴更害怕人类。两种蜥蜴都更靠近避难所,而且在城市栖息地也比在人类影响较小的自然栖息地更有可能躲藏起来,这可能是对城市地区增加的风险(如猫)的适应行为。西部栅栏蜥蜴在中度和高度人类活动的栖息地中表现出较低的体型和状态,而侧斑蜥蜴的这些特征在不同栖息地中没有差异。两种蜥蜴在不同栖息地的基线浓度和应激诱导的皮质酮浓度没有差异,这表明受人类影响的栖息地没有应激,或者蜥蜴在这些栖息地经历了类似习惯化的过程。总之,我们的研究结果强调了在同一栖息地对多个物种进行标准化测量的重要性,以了解它们对人类引起的环境变化的不同反应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Urban Ecology
Journal of Urban Ecology Social Sciences-Urban Studies
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Beyond the metropolis: street tree communities and resident perceptions on ecosystem services in small urban centers in India Comparing fear responses of two lizard species across habitats varying in human impact Perceived and desired outcomes of urban coyote management methods Garbage in may not equal garbage out: sex mediates effects of ‘junk food’ in a synanthropic species Effects of landscape cover and yard features on feral and free-roaming cat (Felis catus) distribution, abundance and activity patterns in a suburban area
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1