
==== Front
Nat Commun
Nat Commun
Nature Communications
2041-1723
Nature Publishing Group UK London

39278967
52381
10.1038/s41467-024-52381-8
Article
Mammals show faster recovery from capture and tagging in human-disturbed landscapes
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3860-8877
Stiegler Jonas stiegler@uni-potsdam.de

12
Gallagher Cara A. 1
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6098-0387
Hering Robert 13
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9305-7716
Müller Thomas 456
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7535-3431
Tucker Marlee 7
Apollonio Marco 8
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2069-9619
Arnold Janosch 9
Barker Nancy A. 10
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8734-7431
Barthel Leon 11
Bassano Bruno 12
Beest Floris M. van 13
http://orcid.org/0009-0000-7269-9226
Belant Jerrold L. 14
Berger Anne 11
http://orcid.org/0009-0000-1708-4958
Beyer Jr Dean E. 14
Bidner Laura R. 1516
Blake Stephen 1718
Börner Konstantin 11
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1449-8335
Brivio Francesca 8
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2326-600X
Brogi Rudy 8
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1803-0745
Buuveibaatar Bayarbaatar 19
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4954-9980
Cagnacci Francesca 2021
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6453-4480
Dekker Jasja 22
Dentinger Jane 23
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2675-4575
Duľa Martin 24
Duquette Jarred F. 14
Eccard Jana A. 2
Evans Meaghan N. 2526
Ferguson Adam W. 1627
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8346-2168
Fichtel Claudia 28
Ford Adam T. 29
Fowler Nicholas L. 14
Gehr Benedikt 30
Getz Wayne M. 3132
Goheen Jacob R. 33
Goossens Benoit 2526
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0786-2004
Grignolio Stefano 34
Haugaard Lars 13
Hauptfleisch Morgan 35
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2594-0421
Heim Morten 36
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0051-2930
Heurich Marco 373839
Hewison Mark A. J. 40
Isbell Lynne A. 1541
Janssen René 22
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3174-8604
Jarnemo Anders 42
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4670-6469
Jeltsch Florian 1
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4127-9947
Miloš Jezek 43
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5428-1176
Kaczensky Petra 3644
Kamiński Tomasz 45
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4801-487X
Kappeler Peter 2846
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9948-2377
Kasper Katharina 45
Kautz Todd M. 14
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4140-6002
Kimmig Sophia 11
Kjellander Petter 47
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7264-2158
Kowalczyk Rafał 45
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9269-4446
Kramer-Schadt Stephanie 1148
Kröschel Max 38
http://orcid.org/0009-0000-7095-1918
Krop-Benesch Anette 11
Linderoth Peter 9
Lobas Christoph 1
Lokeny Peter 27
Lührs Mia-Lana 2849
Matsushima Stephanie S. 50
McDonough Molly M. 27
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3490-1515
Melzheimer Jörg 11
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4274-7044
Morellet Nicolas 40
Ngatia Dedan K. 16
Obermair Leopold 515253
Olson Kirk A. 36
Patanant Kidan C. 54
Payne John C. 19
Petroelje Tyler R. 14
Pina Manuel 55
Piqué Josep 55
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3225-6038
Premier Joseph 3738
Pufelski Jan 1
Pyritz Lennart 28
Ramanzin Maurizio 56
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5298-8071
Roeleke Manuel 1
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5628-0385
Rolandsen Christer M. 36
Saïd Sonia 57
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7452-5959
Sandfort Robin 51
Schmidt Krzysztof 45
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4166-6218
Schmidt Niels M. 1358
Scholz Carolin 111
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6131-3543
Schubert Nadine 59
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3389-201X
Selva Nuria 606162
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3455-4218
Sergiel Agnieszka 60
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0399-6646
Serieys Laurel E. K. 63
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6115-2516
Silovský Václav 43
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9469-1508
Slotow Rob 6465
Sönnichsen Leif 1145
Solberg Erling J. 36
Stelvig Mikkel 66
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1260-9214
Street Garrett M. 67
Sunde Peter 13
Svoboda Nathan J. 68
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6019-2639
Thaker Maria 69
http://orcid.org/0009-0004-9231-3457
Tomowski Maxi 170
Ullmann Wiebke 1
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2435-4260
Vanak Abi T. 107172
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0414-2298
Wachter Bettina 11
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6034-5164
Webb Stephen L. 23
Wilmers Christopher C. 50
Zieba Filip 73
Zwijacz-Kozica Tomasz 73
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6807-5162
Blaum Niels 1
1 https://ror.org/03bnmw459 grid.11348.3f 0000 0001 0942 1117 Plant Ecology and Nature Conservation, Institute of Biochemistry and Biology, University of Potsdam, 14469 Potsdam, Germany
2 https://ror.org/03bnmw459 grid.11348.3f 0000 0001 0942 1117 Animal Ecology, Institute of Biochemistry and Biology, University of Potsdam, 14469, Potsdam, Germany
3 https://ror.org/03bnmw459 grid.11348.3f 0000 0001 0942 1117 Ecology and Macroecology Laboratory, Institute for Biochemistry and Biology, University of Potsdam, 14469 Potsdam, Germany
4 grid.438154.f 0000 0001 0944 0975 Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre, Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturforschung, 60325 Frankfurt (Main), Germany
5 https://ror.org/04cvxnb49 grid.7839.5 0000 0004 1936 9721 Department of Biological Sciences, Goethe University, 60438 Frankfurt (Main), Germany
6 grid.467700.2 0000 0001 2182 2028 Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, National Zoological Park, Front Royal, VA USA
7 Department of Environmental Science, Radboud Institute for Biological and Environmental Sciences, Radboud University, P.O. Box 9010, 6500 GL Nijmegen, Netherlands
8 https://ror.org/01bnjbv91 grid.11450.31 0000 0001 2097 9138 Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Sassari, Via Vienna 2, 07100 Sassari, Italy
9 Wildlife Research Unit, Agricultural Centre Baden-Wuerttemberg (LAZBW), 88326 Aulendorf, Germany
10 School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal Durban, South Africa
11 https://ror.org/05nywn832 grid.418779.4 0000 0001 0708 0355 Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research (IZW), Berlin, Germany
12 Gran Paradiso National Park, Turin, Italy
13 https://ror.org/01aj84f44 grid.7048.b 0000 0001 1956 2722 Department of Ecoscience, Aarhus University, Roskilde, Denmark
14 https://ror.org/05hs6h993 grid.17088.36 0000 0001 2195 6501 Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI USA
15 grid.27860.3b 0000 0004 1936 9684 Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616 USA
16 https://ror.org/04c466w42 grid.473370.4 0000 0004 9333 7461 Mpala Research Centre, 555-10400 Nanyuki, Kenya
17 https://ror.org/01p7jjy08 grid.262962.b 0000 0004 1936 9342 Department of Biology, St. Louis University, St. Louis, MO USA
18 https://ror.org/03g0fjg84 grid.502158.b 0000 0000 8504 5603 WildCare Institute, Saint Louis Zoo, 1 Government Drive, Saint Louis, MO 63110 USA
19 grid.516924.d Wildlife Conservation Society, Mongolia Program, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
20 https://ror.org/0381bab64 grid.424414.3 0000 0004 1755 6224 Research and Innovation Centre, Animal Ecology Unit, Fondazione Edmund Mach, San Michele all’Adige, Trento Italy
21 NBFC, National Biodiversity Future Centre, Palermo, 90133 Italy
22 Bionet Natuuronderzoek, Stein, Netherlands
23 https://ror.org/01f5ytq51 grid.264756.4 0000 0004 4687 2082 Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute, and Department of Rangeland, Wildlife and Fisheries Management, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2138 USA
24 grid.7112.5 0000000122191520 Department of Forest Ecology, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic
25 https://ror.org/01dzyb381 grid.452342.6 Danau Girang Field Centre, Sabah Wildlife Department, 88100 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah Malaysia
26 https://ror.org/03kk7td41 grid.5600.3 0000 0001 0807 5670 Organisms and Environment Division, School of Biosciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF10 3AX UK
27 https://ror.org/05ekwbr88 grid.254130.1 0000 0001 2222 4636 Department of Biological Sciences, Chicago State University, 9501 S. King Drive, Chicago, IL 60628 USA
28 https://ror.org/02f99v835 grid.418215.b 0000 0000 8502 7018 German Primate Center, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Unit, 37077 Göttingen, Germany
29 https://ror.org/03rmrcq20 grid.17091.3e 0000 0001 2288 9830 Department of Biology, University of British Columbia, 1177 Research Road, Kelowna, British Columbia Canada
30 https://ror.org/02crff812 grid.7400.3 0000 0004 1937 0650 Department of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies, University of Zurich, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland
31 https://ror.org/01an7q238 grid.47840.3f 0000 0001 2181 7878 Department of Environmental Science Policy & Management, 130 Mulford Hall, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720-3112 USA
32 https://ror.org/04qzfn040 grid.16463.36 0000 0001 0723 4123 School of Mathematical Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X54001, Durban, 4000 South Africa
33 https://ror.org/01485tq96 grid.135963.b 0000 0001 2109 0381 Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071 USA
34 https://ror.org/041zkgm14 grid.8484.0 0000 0004 1757 2064 Department of Life Science and Biotechnology, University of Ferrara, Via Borsari 46, I-44121 Ferrara, Italy
35 grid.442466.6 0000 0000 8752 9062 Biodiversity Research Centre, Agriculture and Natural Resources Sciences, Namibia University of Science and Technology, Windhoek, Namibia
36 https://ror.org/04aha0598 grid.420127.2 0000 0001 2107 519X Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, P.O. Box 5685 Torgarden, NO-7485 Trondheim, Norway
37 https://ror.org/05b2t8s27 grid.452215.5 0000 0004 7590 7184 Department of National Park Monitoring and Animal Management, Bavarian Forest National Park, Freyunger Str. 2, 94481 Grafenau, Germany
38 https://ror.org/0245cg223 grid.5963.9 0000 0004 0491 7203 Chair of Wildlife Ecology and Management, Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacher Straße 4, 79106 Freiburg, Germany
39 https://ror.org/02dx4dc92 grid.477237.2 Institute of Forestry and Wildlife Management, Inland Norway University of Applied Science, NO-2480 Koppang, Norway
40 grid.507621.7 Université de Toulouse, INRAE, CEFS Castanet-Tolosan, France
41 https://ror.org/05t99sp05 grid.468726.9 0000 0004 0486 2046 Animal Behavior Graduate Group, University of California, Davis, CA 95616 USA
42 https://ror.org/03h0qfp10 grid.73638.39 0000 0000 9852 2034 School of Business, Innovation and Sustainability, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden
43 https://ror.org/0415vcw02 grid.15866.3c 0000 0001 2238 631X Department of Game Management and Wildlife Biology, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences, Kamýcká 129, Prague 6-Suchdol, 165 00 Czech Republic
44 https://ror.org/01w6qp003 grid.6583.8 0000 0000 9686 6466 Research Institute of Wildlife Ecology, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, A-1160 Vienna, Austria
45 grid.413454.3 0000 0001 1958 0162 Mammal Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, Stoczek 1, 17-230 Białowieża, Poland
46 https://ror.org/01y9bpm73 grid.7450.6 0000 0001 2364 4210 Department of Sociobiology/Anthropology, University of Göttingen, 37077 Göttingen, Germany
47 https://ror.org/02yy8x990 grid.6341.0 0000 0000 8578 2742 Grimsö Wildlife Research Station, Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 730 91 Riddarhyttan, Sweden
48 https://ror.org/03v4gjf40 grid.6734.6 0000 0001 2292 8254 Institute of Ecology, Chair of Planning-Related Animal Ecology, Technische Universität Berlin, Potsdam, Germany
49 Büro Renala, Gülper Hauptstr. 4, 14715 Havelaue, Germany
50 grid.205975.c 0000 0001 0740 6917 Center for Integrated Spatial Research, Environmental Studies Department, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA
51 https://ror.org/057ff4y42 grid.5173.0 0000 0001 2298 5320 Department of Integrative Biology and Biodiversity Research, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Gregor-Mendel-Straße 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria
52 https://ror.org/01w6qp003 grid.6583.8 0000 0000 9686 6466 Department of Integrative Biology and Evolution, Research Institute of Wildlife Ecology, University of Veterinary Medicine, Savoyenstraße 1, 1160 Vienna, Austria
53 Hunting Association of Lower Austria, Wickenburggasse 3, 1080 Vienna, Austria
54 https://ror.org/02kkvpp62 grid.6936.a 0000 0001 2322 2966 Technische Universität München, Arcisstraße 21, 80333 München, Germany
55 Tragsatec, C. de Julián Camarillo, 6B, San Blas-Canillejas, 28037 Madrid, Spain
56 https://ror.org/00240q980 grid.5608.b 0000 0004 1757 3470 Dipertimento di agronomia, animali, alimenti, risorse naturali e ambiente, Università degli Studi di Padova, 35020 Legnaro PD, Italy
57 https://ror.org/04f5ctv63 0000 0004 9226 0378 Office Français de la Biodiversité, Montfort, 01330 Birieux, France
58 https://ror.org/01aj84f44 grid.7048.b 0000 0001 1956 2722 Arctic Research Centre, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
59 https://ror.org/02hpadn98 grid.7491.b 0000 0001 0944 9128 Department of Behavioural Ecology, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany
60 grid.413454.3 0000 0001 1958 0162 Institute of Nature Conservation, Polish Academy of Sciences, 31-120 Kraków, Poland
61 https://ror.org/03a1kt624 grid.18803.32 0000 0004 1769 8134 Departamento de Ciencias Integradas, Facultad de Ciencias Experimentales, Centro de Estudios Avanzados en Física, Matemáticas y Computación, Universidad de Huelva, Huelva, Spain
62 grid.4711.3 0000 0001 2183 4846 Estación Biológica de Doñana, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Sevilla, Spain
63 grid.452670.2 0000 0004 6431 5036 Panthera, 8 W 40th St, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10018 USA
64 https://ror.org/04qzfn040 grid.16463.36 0000 0001 0723 4123 Amarula Elephant Research Programme, School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 4041 South Africa
65 https://ror.org/02jx3x895 grid.83440.3b 0000 0001 2190 1201 Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College, London, WC1E 6BT UK
66 https://ror.org/019950a73 grid.480666.a 0000 0000 8722 5149 Copenhagen Zoo, Frederiksberg, Denmark
67 https://ror.org/0432jq872 grid.260120.7 0000 0001 0816 8287 Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS USA
68 https://ror.org/02rh7vj17 grid.417842.c 0000 0001 0698 5259 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Division, 11255 W. 8th Street, AK, USA
69 https://ror.org/05j873a45 grid.464869.1 0000 0000 9288 3664 Center for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, 560012 India
70 https://ror.org/03bnmw459 grid.11348.3f 0000 0001 0942 1117 Evolutionary Biology / Systematic Zoology, Institute of Biochemistry and Biology, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany
71 https://ror.org/02e22ra24 grid.464760.7 0000 0000 8547 8046 Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Bangalore, India
72 https://ror.org/04reqzt68 grid.484745.e Wellcome Trust/DBT India Alliance, Clinical and Public Health Program, Bengaluru, India
73 Tatra National Park, Zakopane, Poland
15 9 2024
15 9 2024
2024
15 807923 1 2024
29 8 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Wildlife tagging provides critical insights into animal movement ecology, physiology, and behavior amid global ecosystem changes. However, the stress induced by capture, handling, and tagging can impact post-release locomotion and activity and, consequently, the interpretation of study results. Here, we analyze post-tagging effects on 1585 individuals of 42 terrestrial mammal species using collar-collected GPS and accelerometer data. Species-specific displacements and overall dynamic body acceleration, as a proxy for activity, were assessed over 20 days post-release to quantify disturbance intensity, recovery duration, and speed. Differences were evaluated, considering species-specific traits and the human footprint of the study region. Over 70% of the analyzed species exhibited significant behavioral changes following collaring events. Herbivores traveled farther with variable activity reactions, while omnivores and carnivores were initially less active and mobile. Recovery duration proved brief, with alterations diminishing within 4–7 tracking days for most species. Herbivores, particularly males, showed quicker displacement recovery (4 days) but slower activity recovery (7 days). Individuals in high human footprint areas displayed faster recovery, indicating adaptation to human disturbance. Our findings emphasize the necessity of extending tracking periods beyond 1 week and particular caution in remote study areas or herbivore-focused research, specifically in smaller mammals.

In wildlife tagging, stress from capture and handling can alter post- release behavior and potentially study interpretations. This study of 42 mammal species shows that these effects diminish within 4–7 days, and quicker for animals in high human activity areas indicating adaptation to disturbance.

Subject terms

Behavioural ecology
Animal behaviour
Conservation biology
The complete list of funding and/or grant reference numbers is shown within the manuscript (section 6. Declarations, Funding).issue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature Limited 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Wildlife movement studies are essential for understanding animal behavioral responses to global environmental changes, sustaining ecosystem functioning, and successful nature conservation1. Animal movements are pivotal in shaping biodiversity patterns and connecting habitats2–4. Comprehending the far-reaching anthropogenic influence on movements is therefore paramount to effective land use planning and conservation strategies5. In wildlife research, GPS telemetry is increasingly applied to study animal movement ecology6,7. Current devices track individual movements at unprecedented levels of spatial and temporal precision. Beyond high-resolution motion tracking, modern technology allows for a variety of sensors to be attached to animals, pushing animal tracking into the realm of Big Data7–9 and providing researchers with information not only of animals’ whereabouts but also offering insights into for example their activity patterns, derived from accelerometers10. Such sensors measure static and dynamic acceleration, representing animal movement in three dimensions11 and allowing for the quantification of activity or proxies thereof12–15. One well-established proxy is the overall dynamic body acceleration (ODBA), which estimates activity-related energy expenditure of free-ranging animals16,17.

While tracking devices have enabled researchers to collect invaluable data on animal movements and behavior18 and have yielded considerable scientific and conservation benefits5,19, concerns have been raised about potential adverse effects of these devices on study animals20–23. Deploying telemetry sensors on animals involves capturing, handling, and releasing the focal individual24,25. The effects of physical capture, chemical immobilization, and restraint of animals on possible post-release behavioral modifications are, however, understudied in wildlife species, which may affect the welfare of animals and the interpretation of study results (but see: refs. 26–28). The capture and handling process involves several stress-inducing and physically demanding events that are attributable to human presence and may involve sudden or loud noises, social isolation, limited movement, and impaired vision29–31. The use of neurologically active chemicals can affect animal behavior and movement for several days25,32, ultimately triggering behavioral changes33–35. These behavioral changes can negatively affect home range formation and activity patterns26, body condition32,36,37, and even reproductive success and survival38,39.

In long-term deployments of GPS tracking devices over several months or years, omitting data from the initial days post-capture is common to reduce the chances of biased results driven by capture effects. However, this assumes that animals will have adapted to the attached sensor after this period. Yet, a lack of data exists on the response and recovery of animals to capture and how it varies among species. In contrast, for short-term deployments of several days (e.g., bats or flying foxes), the effects of stress from the collaring process on animal behavior and activity, in addition to the physical impairment effects due to the tag weight40, may result in biased findings with animals having insufficient time to recover. Considerable strides have been made in reducing stress during capture and improving the weight and comfort of devices35. However, effectively evaluating and minimizing adverse collaring impacts remain complex tasks that demand increased research attention41. A few studies have examined the effects of collar deployment procedures and tags on animal behavior (see, e.g., refs. 42,43), but general ethical guidelines for acceptable practices regarding attached devices remain unresolved44. Furthermore, there is a notable absence of protocols for handling data during the initial tracking days due to uncertainty surrounding the duration over which animal-borne tracking devices impair individuals. Compounding this challenge is the difficulty in determining and evaluating ’normal’ behavior22, with only a limited number of case studies attempting this. In captive scimitar-horned oryx Oryx dammah, Stabach et al.43 showed elevated stress hormone levels for up to 5 days and behavioral changes (e.g., increased headshaking) for up to 3 days in collared individuals. Van de Bunte45 found that collared red pandas Ailurus fulgens in captivity reduced daily activity levels and food intake compared to non-collared individuals. In free-ranging red deer Cervus elaphus, Becciolini et al.46 found increased movement rates and avoidance of their center of activity for up to 10 days, likely reflecting recovery from effects of the deployment procedure. In Eurasian beavers Castor fiber, the body mass of dominant individuals decreased considerably with repeated capture events47. American black bears Ursus americanus tended to avoid human presence after capture events48. Similarly, roe deer Capreolus capreolus reduced activity and were displaced towards woodland to avoid human disturbance. These behavioral changes decreased during the first 10 days, with females being less sensitive than males26.

The effects of capture (e.g., helicopter darting or capture, chasing, trapping) on animal behavior can vary widely across species, sex, tag size, and type, deployment duration, the specific deployment procedure, or the environment22,26,44,49. Species differ in stress responses, especially throughout the initial days of tracking, and the time taken to return to their normal behavior31,37. Notably, animals living in anthropogenic landscapes adapt their space use and become more tolerant to human disturbances50,51. As such, the effects of deployment procedures likely differ between individuals who are behaviorally adapted to different levels of human proximity. In a meta-analysis, Samia et al.52 found populations habituated to human stressors to be more tolerant towards human disturbance. Consequently, since movement53 and behavior54,55 change with human proximity, we expect altered responses to capture and immobilization. In this study, we aggregated high-resolution GPS tracking and acceleration (ACC) data from 42 terrestrial mammal species over time from capture to quantify the magnitude and duration of collaring impacts on movement activity. We developed three measures to quantify disturbance effects based on individual movement characteristics and activity (Fig. 1). First, we quantified disturbance intensity to assess changes in daily displacement and activity (measured as ACC/ODBA) by calculating the sum of deviations for each of the initial ten tracking days from the subsequent 10-day average. Second, we calculated recovery speed, reflecting an individual’s adaptability during the first 10 days, using the slope of the disturbance intensity curve on day one. Third, we calculated recovery duration using the time when each individual returned to their long-term average for each behavioral metric. Even though anesthesia dosage is calculated per kilogram, we assume that larger mammals experience a more pronounced disturbance, as they often require longer durations of anesthesia24 and face more substantial physiological challenges during immobilization such as hyperthermia56 compared to smaller mammals. This prolonged exposure can lead to more significant physiological and behavioral disruptions. In contrast, owing to their higher energy requirements relative to their body size, smaller mammals need to be consistently more active.Fig. 1 Methods calculating the disturbance intensity, recovery speed and duration with specific examples.

A Illustrates the difference of daily activity (ODBA) and displacements (days 1–10) from the long-term means (days 11–20). First, we calculated daily (days 1–10) activity (ODBA) and displacements. Subsequently, we related derived values to the long-term mean (days 11–20). The analysis was conducted identically for activity and displacements. B To calculate the disturbance intensity, we related daily averaged values (displacement, activity) to the respective mean during days 11–20. The upper example illustrates the disturbance intensity of Propithecus verreauxi, with increased displacements on the first days, before converging towards the long-term mean; the lower illustrates the disturbance intensity in activity of Canis aureus, with decreased activity during the initial days of tracking. C Recovery speed was calculated as the ∣slope∣ on day one post-release, and recovery duration was determined as the time when animals reverted to their long-term mean for the first time post-release. The upper example illustrates the recovery speed and duration in activity of Cervus elaphus, the lower one of Canis lupus.

Capturing and tagging animals acts as a manipulative experiment, enabling us to investigate how animals respond to such disturbances. Beyond data exclusion considerations, such studies allow for the exploration of various hypotheses related to patterns in the behavioral responses of animals. We hypothesize that responses to capture are not only species-specific but may also encompass broader patterns driven by distinct traits. Due to their reproductive roles, we expect females to exhibit heightened sensitivity and more gradual recovery. We also assumed that dietary requirements are reflected in the responses, as herbivores may be more flexible in finding forage, allowing them to find shelter to recover. In contrast, carnivores need to roam continuously for survival and are evolutionary less adapted to being hunted, potentially making them more susceptible to prolonged impairment. By comprehensively examining this aspect, we expect the diet to influence the duration and intensity of an individual’s impairment. Furthermore, we were particularly interested in whether animals in remote areas with fewer anthropogenic influences recover slower because individuals are less adapted to human disturbances.

In this work, we quantified the overall disturbance impact of capture across terrestrial mammal species, including assessing the time required for recovery and identifying periods most affected, which could bias the interpretation of results if not adequately accounted for. More than 70% of the species analyzed showed behavioral changes following collaring events. Herbivores traveled larger distances, while omnivores and carnivores were less active and mobile during the initial days post-release. Recovery duration proved brief, with alterations diminishing within 4−7 tracking days for most species, with individuals in high human footprint areas displaying faster recovery, indicating adaptation to human disturbance.

Results

Disturbance intensity

Among the 42 terrestrial mammal species analyzed, 30 were sensitive to the collaring procedure and significantly changed their activity or displacement behavior during the first 10 days after release (Fig. 2, Table 1, Figs. S1–S30). In total, we found that 25 of 41 species increased or decreased their activity, and 19 out of 40 species changed their displacements during the first 10 days of tracking (Fig. 2, Table 1). While within-species variability was high (pIDGPS and pIDACC<0.001), sex did not significantly influence species-specific reaction behavior (psexGPS and psexACC>0.05). On the first day of tracking, individuals were, on average, less active compared to their long-term mean (−7.8 ± 19.2%; mean ± SD), whereas daily displacements were higher (6.9 ± 23.8%; mean ± SD), with large SD attributed to strong intra- and interspecific variability. Net deviations, i.e., absolute deviations on the first day, were 14.2 ± 15% for activity and 18.7 ± 16.3% for displacements. The activity level of 25 species differed substantially immediately after release compared to subsequent days, with a gradual stabilization during the initial days (Table 2). This trend was particularly evident in omnivores (R2 = 0.374, Dev. explained = 46.4%). While omnivores and carnivores were less active during the initial days, pooled herbivore data revealed both increased and decreased activity rates. A similar pattern was found for displacements, as most species traveled longer distances after collaring events compared to the long-term mean (days 11–20; R2 = 0.25, Dev. explained = 37.7).Fig. 2 Disturbance intensity: Impacts of collaring on activity and displacements during the initial 10 days post-release.

Daily differences to the long-term mean of activity (upper) and displacements (lower) split by diet: herbivores (left), omnivores (middle), and carnivores (right) for 42 mammal species, n = 1585. All species with p ≤ 0.05 are shown as solid lines and species with p > 0.05 or n < 5 as dotted lines. Activity: R2 = 0.374, Dev. explained = 46.4%, displacements: R2 = 0.25, Dev. explained = 37.6%. Predictions are derived from two Generalized Additive Mixed Models with Gamma error distributions to assess the effect of disturbance intensity on activity and displacements of the focal species over time. The dotted blue line represents the long-term mean (average for days 11−20). In the legend following each species name, the first number refers to the number of individuals for activity and the second for displacements.

Table 1 Species model summary: Disturbance intensity in activity and displacements

Study species	Activity	Displacements	
Scientific Name	Common Name	edf	ref.df	Statistic	p-value	edf	ref.df	Statistic	p-value	
Acinonyx jubatus	Cheetah					1.160	1.294	3.799	0.058	
Alces alces	Moose	1.993	2.000	190.955	<0.001	1.994	2.000	76.011	<0.001	
Antidorcas marsupialis	Springbok	1.000	1.000	1.333	0.248	1.000	1.000	0.176	0.675	
Bison bison	American Bison	1.000	1.000	11.711	0.001					
Bison bonasus	European Bison	1.859	1.980	6.700	0.001	1.000	1.001	6.856	0.009	
Canis aureus	Golden Jackal	1.904	1.991	14.369	<0.001	1.000	1.000	0.441	0.507	
Canis latrans	Coyote	1.940	1.996	25.793	<0.001					
Canis lupus	Gray Wolf	1.894	1.989	37.056	<0.001	1.684	1.900	12.894	<0.001	
Capra ibex	Alpine Ibex	1.936	1.996	92.773	<0.001	1.664	1.887	1.924	0.098	
Capreolus capreolus	Roe Deer	1.996	2.000	150.162	<0.001	1.996	2.000	30.008	<0.001	
Cervus elaphus	Red Deer	1.942	1.997	31.220	<0.001	1.961	1.999	16.210	<0.001	
Chlorocebus pygerythrus	Vervet Monkey	1.000	1.000	0.302	0.583	1.000	1.000	0.082	0.775	
Crocuta crocuta	Spotted Hyena	1.875	1.984	4.426	0.014	1.387	1.625	9.713	<0.001	
Cryptoprocta ferox	Fossa	1.000	1.000	0.335	0.563	1.886	1.987	8.911	<0.001	
Equus hemionus	Mongolian Khulan	1.000	1.000	5.465	0.019	1.925	1.994	30.232	<0.001	
Erinaceus europaeus	European Hedgehog	1.891	1.988	5.816	0.004	1.000	1.000	0.001	0.983	
Eulemur rufifrons	Red-fronted Lemur	1.000	1.000	0.061	0.805	1.000	1.000	0.059	0.809	
Felis chaus	Jungle Cat	1.812	1.965	14.060	<0.001	1.000	1.000	8.527	0.004	
Felis silvestris	Wildcat	1.000	1.000	1.337	0.248	1.754	1.939	1.323	0.262	
Gazella subgutturosa	Goitered Gazelle	1.280	1.481	9.762	<0.001	1.669	1.891	1.114	0.256	
Genetta genetta	Common Genet	1.809	1.964	15.326	<0.001	1.448	1.695	2.954	0.130	
Ichneumia albicauda	White-tailed Mongoose	1.919	1.993	14.329	<0.001	1.000	1.000	1.277	0.259	
Lepus europaeus	European Hare	1.195	1.352	18.290	<0.001	1.000	1.000	6.623	0.010	
Lynx lynx	Eurasian Lynx	1.811	1.964	20.903	<0.001	1.694	1.907	4.823	0.025	
Lynx rufus	Bobcat	1.313	1.528	7.565	0.006	1.000	1.000	0.439	0.508	
Madoqua guentheri	Günther’s dik-dik	1.000	1.000	1.165	0.281	1.289	1.495	0.347	0.766	
Odocoileus virginianus	White-tailed Deer	1.000	1.000	<0.001	0.993	1.000	1.000	18.475	<0.001	
Ovibos moschatus	Muskox	1.000	1.000	4.636	0.031	1.205	1.369	1.557	0.283	
Panthera leo	African Lion	1.000	1.000	1.889	0.169	1.010	1.020	0.028	0.886	
Panthera pardus	Leopard	1.758	1.941	8.783	0.001	1.685	1.901	5.692	0.013	
Papio anubis	Olive Baboon	1.000	1.000	0.178	0.673	1.000	1.000	0.666	0.415	
Procyon lotor	Raccoon	1.266	1.461	2.380	0.168	1.000	1.000	1.802	0.180	
Propithecus verreauxi	Verreaux’s Sifaka	1.000	1.000	0.099	0.753	1.718	1.921	4.117	0.041	
Puma concolor	Cougar	1.000	1.000	0.001	0.971	1.000	1.000	2.255	0.133	
Sus scrofa	Wild Boar	1.867	1.982	418.661	<0.001	1.000	1.000	53.265	<0.001	
Tragelaphus oryx	Gemsbok	1.760	1.943	1.990	0.166	1.861	1.981	7.511	0.001	
Tragelaphus strepsiceros	Greater Kudu	1.096	1.183	0.438	0.483	1.000	1.000	0.373	0.541	
Ursus americanus	American Black Bear	1.928	1.995	76.150	<0.001	1.826	1.970	13.861	<0.001	
Ursus arctos	Brown Bear	1.552	1.799	2.919	0.121	1.529	1.778	3.161	0.104	
Viverra tangalunga	African Civet	1.563	1.809	12.381	<0.001	1.369	1.602	5.142	0.026	
Vulpes bengalensis	Bengal Fox	1.811	1.964	6.690	0.004	1.000	1.000	0.501	0.479	
Vulpes vulpes	Red Fox	1.650	1.878	6.532	0.008	1.000	1.000	1.367	0.242	
s(ID)		1248	1451	6.584	<0.001	1063	1261	4.589	<0.001	
s(sex)		0.140	1.000	1.159	0.312	0.001	1.000	<0.001	0.472	
R-sq. (adj)		0.374	0.250	
Deviance explained		46.4%	37.7%	
n		1452	1262	
The presented results include values for estimated degrees of freedom (edf) and reference degrees of freedom (ref.df), where edf represents the effective degrees of freedom resulting from the fitted model, indicating model flexibility, while ref.df serves as a baseline measure for comparison. (see methods, Eq. (1)).

Table 2 Duration until return to mean long-term behavior (mean values  ± standard deviation)

Dietary type	Mean days (ACC)	Mean days (GPS)	
Herbivore	6.59 ± 0.86	3.60 ± 1.00	
Omnivore	5.50 ± 0.63	5.63 ± 0.49	
Carnivore	5.09 ± 0.88	5.44 ± 0.50	
Displacements were calculated based on localizations (GPS) and activity based on accelerometer data (ACC).

On the first day post-release, moose (Alces alces) exhibited the largest increases in displacement distance, moving 63% further compared to the long-term mean, followed by common eland Tragelaphus oryx (52%), and spotted hyena Crocuta crocuta (44%). In contrast, leopards Panthera pardus were found to have the largest reductions in displacement distances, reducing their movement distances by-65%, followed by wolves Canis lupus (−44%), and Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx (−43%). Moose also had the largest increases in activity on day one (44%), followed by red deer Cervus elaphus (26%), and Mongolian khulan Equus hemionus hemionus (9%). Wolves had the largest decreases in activity on day one (−48%), followed by the white-tailed mongoose Ichneumia albicauda (−41%), and leopard Panthera pardus and golden jackal Canis aureus (−41%). In general, carnivores traveled shorter distances post-release, aside from the spotted hyena (Deviance day1GPS = 44%) and fossa Cryptoprocta ferox (Deviance day1GPS = 12%). In this study, we did not investigate mortality rates as only individuals that survived for at least 20 days post-tagging were included in our analysis.

Recovery speed and duration

Recovery speed in activity is best explained by a high human footprint index of the respective study site, the individuals’ sex [+male] (Fig. 3AB, Table 3) and a larger body mass (competing model, ΔAIC < 2, Tab. S2). A fast recovery in displacements was best explained by the species-specific diet [+carnivore] and its body mass, with large species recovering considerably faster (Fig. 3CD, Table 4). During the first 10 days of tracking, the difference from the long-term mean of displacements decreased from 33 ± 17% on day 1 to 21 ± 20% on day 10, while activity decreased from 24 ± 14%–12 ± 6%; devianceday1 vs. devianceday10 for all species with p ≤ 0.05, Fig. 3, Table 1. Comparing individual days in days 11–20 to the mean of this period indicated mean routine variations of 14% for activity and 35% for displacements.Fig. 3 Recovery speed described in relation to dietary type, an individual’s sex, and the human Footprint index of the study area.

A, B Recovery speed (of activity) described in relation to sex and the Human Footprint index (HFi), n = 1241. High recovery speed values indicate a fast recovery. High HFi values indicate a strong anthropogenic influence, and low values indicate a high degree of remoteness. The inset (A) shows the density plots of the sample size distribution for each dietary guild in regard to HFi. B Predictions are presented for values of the lower (12.37), median (18.68), and upper (25) quartiles of HFi. Insets here (B) present exemplary satellite imagery of sites with differing HFi; left to right: an area with little infrastructure and some habitat fragmentation [HFi: 10]; agricultural fields with small forest patches, road infrastructure, and some settlements [HFi: 17]; a more degraded landscape with a quarry and an adjacent solar park [HFi: 25] (ⓒLandsat / Copernicus, GoogleEarth 2020-202388). Landscapes with extreme HFi values (close to zero: representing pristine, undisturbed areas; close to 50: representing dense populated urban areas) were less present in the dataset and, as such, examples are not shown. C, D Recovery speed (of displacements) described in relation to body mass (C) and dietary type (D), n = 1014. Recovery speed describes the speed of change in activity or displacements as a percentage of the respective long-term mean on day one. Dots (A, C) represent calculated values. Dots (B, D) and the solid lines (A, C) represent mean modeled values, and bars (B, D) as well as the gray shaded area (A, C) are 95% confidence intervals. Note that the y-axis is sqrt-transformed.

Table 3 Recovery speed of activity

Recovery speed activity	
Predictors	Estimates	CI	p	
(Intercept)	−5.51	−10.08 – −0.94	0.018	
mass	0.31	−0.13 – 0.75	0.172	
sex [m]	0.19	0.02 – 0.36	0.025	
diet [herbivore]	0.60	−1.25 – 2.45	0.527	
diet [omnivore]	−0.34	−1.96 – 1.29	0.685	
HFi	1.83	1.40 – 2.25	<0.001	
Random Effects				
σ2	2.02			
τ00 study species	2.53			
ICC	0.56			
N study species	25			
Observations	1241			
Marginal R2 / Conditional R2	0.111 / 0.605			
The best-fit model to describe recovery speed in terms of activity spent included the species’ body mass, sex, dietary type, and the study site’s Human Footprint Index (HFi) as independent variables. Study species was implemented as a random effect (see methods, Eq. (2)).

Table 4 Recovery speed of displacements

Recovery speed displacements	
Predictors	Estimates	CI	p	
(Intercept)	0.70	−0.47 – 1.86	0.240	
diet [herbivore]	−0.42	−0.91 – 0.07	0.092	
diet [omnivore]	−0.78	−1.35 – −0.23	0.006	
mass	0.25	0.14 – 0.36	<0.001	
Random Effects				
σ2	1.31			
τ00 study species	0.06			
ICC	0.05			
N study species	17			
Observations	1014			
Marginal R2 / Conditional R2	0.065 / 0.107			
The best-fit model to describe recovery speed in terms of displacements included dietary type and the species’ body mass as independent variables. Study species was implemented as a random effect (see methods, Eq. (2)).

Recovery duration also differed between dietary types. Omnivores and carnivores returned to their mean long-term behavior in both disturbance intensity measures after 5–6 days (Table 2), with data beyond this period being less influenced by collaring events. In contrast, herbivores were the quickest to return to their mean long-term displacement behavior but were slowest to return to their long-term activity levels: 3.6 ± 1.0 days (displacements), and 6.6  ± 0.9 days (activity), mean ± SD).

Discussion

Our findings revealed widespread evidence of post-collaring behavioral changes in animal activity and displacements. Animals displayed a general trend in their responses, marked by the most pronounced deviations in behavior immediately following successful collar deployment. Subsequently, their behavior stabilized, converging on their long-term mean within four to 7 days (Tab. 2). This recovery duration represents the initial period of more pronounced data bias. Responses found in our dataset are consistent with the findings of case studies from the respective species: In moose A. alces, the observed reaction is in accordance with Neumann et al.57, who identified larger spatial displacements for up to 4.5 days after capture. In wild boars Sus scrofa, similar to our findings, the first post-capture days were characterized by low activity and low mobility levels, which then gradually restored to stable levels at approximately 10 days28. Additionally, we observed increased movement rates for red deer immediately after release, as found by Becciolini et al.46. We can not make any conclusions about the effect of tagging on survival rates, as only data from individuals that survived the study period were considered.

Males recovered on average 1.3 days faster than females from collaring-induced changes in activity, aligning with findings in roe deer26, yet this effect was not detected in displacements. Females may require a longer recovery time due to gestation, birth, and rearing of offspring (as only 5–10% of mammalian species engage in paternal care58). These factors may aggravate negative impacts associated with the attachment of tracking devices, potentially leading to increased stress levels, reduced foraging efficiency, or, as a consequence, compromised reproductive success26–28. We expect this effect to be even more pronounced in pregnant or lactating females. However, due to the heterogeneous nature of the dataset, with various species captured over different times across continents, we did not account for an individual’s physiological or behavioral season.

Omnivores and carnivores were generally less active than herbivores after release. In cases where animals are caught with bait, as is sometimes done for carnivores and omnivores, individuals may not need to carry out foraging movements in the following days as they would under normal circumstances. A more proximate explanation for the reduced movement and activity could also be a reaction to chemical immobilization. In contrast, 65% of the herbivores increased their activity on the first day post-release. Resting to conserve energy does not seem like a legitimate reaction to being chased and immobilized because their natural response to being chased by predators is escaping by moving. The recovery speed of activity and displacements after collaring events was slower in herbivores than omnivores and carnivores. From an evolutionary perspective, this is surprising since predators frequently chase many wild herbivores, and therefore, herbivores may be expected to be better adapted to and recover faster from disturbances. Yet, these responses may be offset by the potent anesthesia used, particularly for large herbivores (e.g., Bison sp., A. alces, Tragelaphus strepsiceros, C. elaphus). For all species, we found strong intraspecific variation in the response behavior, which may be context-specific or linked to animal personalities59, traditionally assessed along a bold-shy continuum60,61.

Stress-related activity of wildlife is often categorized as either fight or flight62. This can also hold true for the post-capture response of wildlife to either the capture event or the collar. Characterization of fight-flight was first identified in human psychology63, but as Bracha et al.64 noted, the addition of “freeze” to the term is needed. In wildlife, this can be extended to include hiding in response to disturbance65. Post-release behavior likely includes a complex blend of all these responses, as well as additional stressors they encounter during that timeframe. To add to this complexity, in places with significant anthropogenic influence, animals frequently display enhanced tolerance and adaptation to human presence50,51. Animals that adapt to human presence may experience reduced competition for resources compared to natural habitats66.

Management practices, such as supplementary feeding, which can cause habituation and changes in space use, mobility, or activity (e.g., ref. 67), may also influence behavior after collaring. Furthermore, some species demonstrate behavioral flexibility and can adjust their activity patterns or habitat preferences68 and their movement behavior69 to avoid direct conflicts with humans. For example, some mammals, such as raccoons Procyon lotor and coyotes Canis latrans, thrive in urban areas by utilizing human-associated food resources and adapting their behavior to coexist with humans50,51, yet, the impact of anthropogenic influence is species-specific70. Previous studies have shown that human interactions can strongly influence animal behavior. For example, the coexistence of humans and wildlife in urban areas often selects individuals with bold personalities71–73. On the other hand, animals inhabiting remote areas have less exposure to human presence and, consequently, encounters. Hence, when such animals encounter humans, they might show an exacerbated response toward the disturbance and remain alert for a prolonged time. While this assertion is speculative, it is supported by our finding here, where individuals in remote areas recovered slower from collaring than those in highly anthropogenically influenced areas. With numerous deployment methods like helicopter darting, chasing, or trapping being applied in the field, analyzing their effect was not feasible within the scope of this study. The effect of the deployment method remains unclear, and the selected method may even change along an HFI gradient. For example, helicopter darting may be the only option in areas with little infrastructure, whereas in more urban areas, alternative options are preferred. Interpreting the effect of the human footprint should take into account that deployment type could be influenced by the respective study area. Therefore, we strongly recommend documenting these methodological decisions for future research.

There exists a fine balance between obtaining valuable data and ensuring the well-being of tracked animals. Researchers must consider these ethical dilemmas carefully and implement tracking methods that minimize harm and maximize animal welfare. Omitting initial data can contribute to reducing biased results, thereby generating more accurate outcomes that could better inform conservation efforts. Yet, it may be difficult to detect the effects of collars during short-term deployments, as the data obtained is highly time-constrained. While our study was confined to assessing behavioral alterations associated with collaring events, it is important to note that even short-term modifications in behavior can incur energetic costs, reduce energy intake, or influence predation risk and, as such, potentially impact animal survival and fitness74–76. As we only considered data from individuals that survived for at least 20 days post-tagging, we could not account for possible mortality rates. The inclusion of such data in future studies could contribute to an even more holistic understanding of the consequences of tagging.

While established animal welfare guidelines and regulatory requirements that allow for such invasive studies exist, many of these rely on findings from isolated case studies. Our study of post-release telemetry data of 42 terrestrial mammalian species reveals potential biases in wildlife GPS and ACC data during the initial days of animal tracking, likely due to invasive immobilization and tagging procedures, which may influence movement ecology findings. These impacts, however, fade within a relatively short time frame of four to 7 days, suggesting that the overall impact of collaring is minimal and short-lived, which is good news for animal tracking science. In studies where longer tracking is not feasible, researchers should be aware of these disturbance biases. Particularly, short-term studies, lasting <7 days, may be significantly compromised. These studies are prevalent in certain research areas, for example, where battery weight strongly limits tracking duration. Based on our findings, we strongly advocate extending animal tracking periods well beyond 7 days whenever possible. Further efforts relating the findings of this study to other important variables such as method of capture, type of tag, drug combinations, and post-release behavior could provide valuable insights into best practices in reducing capture myopathy, stress, and data bias. By understanding and addressing these limitations, researchers can maximize GPS-collaring advantages while limiting adverse effects on study animals. Undoubtedly, animal tracking will continue to contribute to our understanding of the environment, with progress in this field being propelled by ongoing technological developments, improved techniques, and heightened ethical considerations.

Methods

Data collection and preparation

Animal tracking data (GPS and ACC, see Supplementary Note 1 for permits) from multiple data providers were either directly sourced from tables or downloaded from the Movebank data repository77 with the help of the R package Move78. In the first step, we omitted individuals with missing data during the initial 20 days, resulting in 1585 unique individuals. We defined data as missing if any discontinuation resulted in <1 GPS fix per hour and less than one activity measurement per 30 min. The resulting number of individuals per terrestrial mammal species ranged from 4 to 672 (mean nacc = 36.4, mean ngps = 32.6) out of total individuals nacc = 1452 of 41 species across 57 study sites, and total individuals ngps = 1262 of 40 species across 55 study sites.

We classified the data into two periods: the initial 10 days following the individual’s release and days 11–20. We considered the latter timeframe representative of ’long-term’ behavior, expecting that the response to the collaring/handling process had subsided within the initial 10 days, as shown in previous studies (e.g., A. alces ≤ 4.5 days57, C. capreolus ≤ 10 days26, C. elaphus ≤ 10 days46).

We calculated mean daily ODBA values for each individual with the R package moveACC79 as ODBA = ∣Ax∣ + ∣Ay∣ + ∣Az∣ for tri-axial measurements; and as ODBA = ∣Ax∣ + ∣Ay∣ for bi-axial measurements, where Ax, Ay, and Az are the derived dynamic accelerations corresponding to the three perpendicular axes of the sensor13. Downsampling from three to two axes to compare ACC measurements was not necessary, as the raw data were used per individual to calculate the disturbance intensity, which is then expressed in percent. Acceleration records obtained from individuals with only one axis (Acinonyx jubatus) were not considered. The temporal resolution of both GPS and ACC data was adjusted by rounding timestamps to the nearest 5 min interval. Then, displacements were calculated using the R package adehabitatLT80 as each individual’s mean displacement (m) from one GPS fix to the next within each 24 h interval. For each study site, we extracted the Human Footprint index (HFi:81,82) and calculated the mean HFi for a 5 km radius around the center of the study site (mean longitude, mean latitude).

Disturbance intensity

Subsequently, we related daily averaged values (displacement, activity) to the respective mean during days 11–20 to calculate the disturbance intensity (Fig. 1). We applied two Generalized Additive Mixed Models with Gamma error distributions for the disturbance intensity in activity and displacements to estimate the effect on the focal species in combination with time (i.e., days 1–10) on daily differences to the long-term mean using the R package mgcv83. Since we did not expect a linear relationship, we specified the predictor variable time as a smooth term for each species and a first-order auto-regressive correlation structure corAR1 among the residuals of the model associated with each individual. Sex was included as a random smoothing effect, allowing for a smooth relationship between sex and the dependent variable. This allows for individual-specific effects of sex on the response, which can be useful when assuming that the relationship between sex and the response is not strictly linear but varies smoothly across individuals or species. The disturbance intensity model was specified as follows:1 devianceid,t~Gamma(ηid,t,α)ηid,t=expf(t)species+uid+usex+νid,tνid,t=ρνid,t−1+ϵid,t−1ϵid,t−1~N0,σ2

Thus, the linear predictor ηid,t includes an autoregressive process of order one (AR[1]). Here, the parameter ρ accounts for the temporal autocorrelation, id represents the animal identifier, and t is the corresponding time point. In addition, u indicates the use of random intercepts. Deviance was calculated and modeled separately for both activity and displacement.

Recovery speed and duration

For all individuals of species with significant disturbance effects (Fig. 2, Table 1), we calculated the ∣slope∣ on day one after the release as a measure of recovery speed, i.e., how fast individuals adapt throughout the first days. The slope was calculated for each individual as the first derivative for x = 1 from the ID-specific fitted curve with y ~ log(x). Recovery speed, expressed in units of percentage per day, quantifies the rate of adaptation of individuals. The steeper the slope (i.e., the higher the values), the faster individuals were at adapting or acclimating. We applied separate linear mixed effect models for activity and displacement to estimate the recovery speed in both activity and displacements, using the R package lme484 using the respective measurements, ∣slope day 1∣ as the dependent variable. We included sex, dietary type (herbivore, omnivore, carnivore), body mass derived from literature values85 (Table S1), and the Human Footprint index of the study area as independent variables and study species as a random effect. Due to incomplete data and many different levels, we did not consider the deployment procedure as an independent variable. The dependent variable, as well as the independent variables, body mass and HFi, were log-transformed. The model was calculated using Gaussian error distribution and a natural logarithm link function. Subsequently, we selected models using the R package MuMIn86. By ranking model combinations via the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), we considered all independent variables in the best-fit models within 2 AIC units in the final model and report the respective summary. Models were calculated using all gap-less data available for the independent and dependent variables, resulting in minor variations in sample size and species analyzed for activity and displacements.

To assess the stabilization period of collaring effects on activity and displacement, we used the fitted disturbance intensity model (Eq. 1) to calculate the period until individuals reverted to their average long-term behavior for both disturbance intensity measures (activity and displacements) for the first time post-release. For this, we included all individuals of species in which significant patterns were identified with the disturbance intensity model above.

The recovery speed model was specified as a linear mixed effect model:2 log(∣slopeday1∣)id,species,studysite~Nηid,species,studysite,σ2η=β0+β1log(massspecies)+β2log(HFispecies,studysite)+βsexsexid+βdietdietspecies+u(species),

where sex and diet were specified as categorical variables; slopeday1 was calculated and modeled separately for activity and displacement.

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Peer Review File

Reporting Summary

Source data

Source Data

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41467-024-52381-8.

Acknowledgements

We are very thankful for the support of Karatina University, Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History, and Mpala Research Centre; the staff of Polish and Slovak Tatra National Parks for their help in bear trapping; all Carpathian Brown Bear Project members who assisted in the field during captures, handling and data collection; Zbigniew Krasinski from the Białowieza National Park and Tomasz Kaminski from the Mammal Research Institute PAS for help in European bison collaring; the BioMove RTG including associated helpers in the field, the workers at the ZALF research station; the Forest and Wildlife Research Center at Mississippi State University; the members of Euromammals including Eurodeer, Euroboar, and Euroreddeer; Junta de Castilla y Leon, Gobierno Principado Asturias, Ministerio Transicion Ecologica, Tragsatec; the Oyu Tolgoi’s Core Biodiversity Monitoring Program, implemented by the WCS through a cooperative agreement with Sustainability East Asia LLC for their help in Khulan capture, marking and radiotracking; N. Sharma, G. Basson, D. Medeiros, J. McGraw, R. Reed, A. Johnston, H. Maschmeyer, R. King, B. Nichols, J. Suraci, for essential support in animal tracking; D. Simpson, S. Ekwanga, M. Mutinda, G. Omondi, W. Longor, M. Iwata, A. Surmat, M. Snider, W. Fox, and K. VanderWaal for field assistance, M. Crofoot, D. Rubenstein, and L. Frank for sharing their field equipment, and M. Kinnaird and T. Young for logistical support; L. Purchart, M. Kutal, J. Krojerová, and K. Purchartová for scientific background and project coordination and P. Forejtek for veterinarian support; the Danau Girang Field Centre research group in collaboration with the Sabah Wildlife Department, Veterinarian support provided by Drs. M. Gonzalez, S. Guerrero-Sanchez, D. Ramirez, L. Benedict, and P. Nagalingam; field assistants and personnel at Zackenberg Research Station; the Office Français de la Biodiversité, especially Jean-Luc Hamann and Vivien Siat and the Office National des Forets, including the wildlife technicians, the foresters, and the many volunteers for their help in the capture of red and roe deer; field collaborators and veterinarians of the Leibniz-IZW, Berlin, especially Janina Radwainski; the Namibian Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism, the Namibian farmers, and the entire team of the Cheetah Research Project of the Leibniz-IZW, Berlin; K. Boyer, S. Peper, C. Wilson, Z. Johnson, H. Greenburg, K. Haydett, D. Warren, D. Payne, J. Hoffman, M. Proctor, J. Gaskamp for assistance with trapping wild pigs and white-tailed deer in Oklahoma; the University of California, Santa Cruz and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for their partnership in the Santa Cruz Puma project; and all non-mentioned technicians, and workers in the field. This work was supported by the DFG-funded research training group “BioMove" (DFG-GRK 2118/1); by a National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Research Fellowship in Biology (DBI-1402456) awarded to Adam W. Ferguson and Paul W. Webala; the Polish-Norwegian Research program administered by the National Research Centre for Research and Development in Poland (POL-NOR/198352/85/2013), Tatra National Park own funding; by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research BMBF within the Collaborative Project “Bridging in Biodiversity Science-BIBS" (grant number: 01LC1501); by the Polish Ministry of Sciences and Information Technology (grant no 2P04F 011 26); Frankfurt Zoological Society  − Help for Threatened Wildlife and the EU LIFE program (project no LIFE06 NAT/PL/000105); by the DFG: KA 1082/17-1; by the DFG: KA 1082/16-1; by Safari Club International Foundation, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, and the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act under Pittman-Robertson project W-147-R; by grant QK1910462 and CZ021010.00.0160190000803; by Ministerio de la Transicion Ecologica; by the Peninsula Open Space Trust, Land Trust of Santa Cruz County, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Santa Clara Open Space Authority; by the National Geographic Society Committee for Research and Exploration #9385-13; by the Washington University in Saint Louis ICARES grant 2015; by the Dean’s office of the Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno and Training Forest Enterprise Masaryk Forest Kr^tiny; by Houston Zoo; the Sime Darby Foundation; Ocean Park Conservation Foundation Hong Kong (TM01.1718); and Phoenix Zoo; by the ‘Mov-It’ Agence Nationale de la Recherche grant ANR-16-CE02-0010-02 to NM; by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany, FKZ: 01LL1804A; by the Office Français de la Biodiversité (OFB); by the “Stiftung Naturschutz Berlin"; by the Noble Research Institute, LLC; by 15. Juni Fonden and Copenhagen Zoo; by the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research (PRIN 2010-2011, 20108 TZKHC, 418 J81J12000790001); by the Foreste Casentinesi National Park; by the Regione Autonoma della Sardegna, Provincia di Sassari, and Fondazione Banco di Sardegna; by the National Science Foundation; by the Messerli Foundation Switzerland; CS was supported by the Elsa-Neumann foundation; by the US National Science Foundation (grant nos. BCS 99-03949, BCS 1266389), the Leakey Foundation, and the Committee on Research, University of California, Davis to Lynne A. Isbell, and the Wenner-Gren Foundation (grant no. 8386) to Laura R. Bidner; by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), NAB. PGSD3-404001-2011; by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), WMG. GM83863, and the University of KwaZulu-Natal.

Author contributions

Niels Blaum & Jonas Stiegler developed the idea; Marlee Tucker & Francesca Cagnacci facilitated data collection, Robert Hering helped analyze the data; Thomas Müller, Marlee Tucker, Niels Blaum, and Jonas Stiegler conducted initial manuscript structuring, internal revision, and outline; Cara A. Gallagher designed the conceptual figure and strongly contributed to revising the manuscript; Nancy Barker, Anne Berger, Niels Blaum, Francesca Cagnacci, Meaghan N. Evans, Cara A. Gallagher, Morgan Hauptfleisch, Robert Hering, Robert Hering, Marco Heurich, Lynne A. Isbell, Stephanie Kramer-Schadt, Thomas Müller, Krzysztof Schmidt, Nuria Selva, Laurel E.K. Serieys, Agnieszka Sergiel, Marlee Tucker, Bettina Wachter, Stephen Webb, Christopher C. Wilmers, Tomasz Zwijacz-Kozica commented on the manuscript. The main persons responsible for providing the data are Nancy A. Barker (C. crocuta, P. leo), Floris M. van Beest (O. moschatus), Jerrold L. Belant (C. latrans, C. lupus, U. americanus), Anne Berger (C. capreolus, E. europaeus), Stephen Blake (B. bison), Niels Blaum (A. marsupialis, L. europaeus, T. oryx, T. strepsiceros), Francesca Brivio (S. scrofa), Bayarbaatar Buuveibaatar (G. subgutturosa), Francesca Cagnacci (C. capreolus, C. elaphus, C. ibex, L. lynx, S. scrofa), Meaghan N. Evans (V. tangalunga), Adam W. Ferguson (G. genetta, I. albicauda), Claudia Fichtel (C. ferox, E. rufifrons, P. verreauxi), Adam T. Ford (M. guentheri), Wayne M. Getz (C. crocuta, P. leo), Stefano Grignolio (C. ibex), Morgan Hauptfleisch (A. marsupialis, T. oryx, T. strepsiceros), Robert Hering (A. marsupialis, T. oryx, T. strepsiceros), Marco Heurich (C. elaphus), Lynne A. Isbell (C. pygerythrus, P. pardus, P.anubis), René Janssen (F. silvestris), Petra Kaczensky (E. hemionus), Sophia Kimmig (V. vulpes), Rafał Kowalczyk (B. bonasus), Stephanie Kramer-Schadt (P. lotor, V. vulpes), Mia-Lana Lührs (C. ferox), Jörg Melzheimer (A. jubatus), Nicolas Morellet (C. capreolus), Manuel Roeleke (P. lotor), Christer M. Rolandsen (A. alces), Sonia Saïd (C. capreolus), Niels M. Schmidt (O. moschatus), Nuria Selva (U. arctos), Laurel E. K. Serieys (L. rufus), Rob Slotow (P. leo), Jonas Stiegler (L. europaeus), Garrett M. Street (O. virginianus, S. scrofa), Wiebke Ullmann (L. europaeus), Abi T. Vanak (C. aureus, F. chaus, V. bengalensis), Bettina Wachter (A. jubatus), Stephen L. Webb (O. virginianus, S. scrofa), Christopher C. Wilmers (P. concolor). All other co-authors contributed to data collection and approved the final manuscript.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Communications thanks Mark Boyce and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. A peer review file is available.

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Data availability

The datasets generated in this study to create the respective figures have been provided in the Source Data file. The GPS and acceleration datasets used and analyzed in this study are available in the Movebank Data Repository77 at www.movebank.org (Antidorcas marsupialis, ID: 904829042; Chlorocebus pygerythrus, ID: 17629305; Erinaceus europaeus, ID: 354843286; ID: 348067475; ID: 490547558; ID: 1371906275; Felis silvestris, ID: 40386102; Genetta genetta, ID: 19814565; Ichneumia albicauda, ID: 158898881; Lepus europaeus, ID: 918554628; ID: 1138520346; ID: 4048590; ID: 25727477; ID: 43360515; ID: 71038468; ID: 73514179; Lynx rufus, ID: 501787846; ID: 475878514; Panthera pardus, ID: 17629305; Papio anubis, ID: 17629305; Procyon lotor, ID: 4048590; Taurotragus oryx, ID: 904829042; Tragelaphus strepsiceros, ID: 904829042; Viverra tangalunga, ID: 57540673; Vulpes vulpes, ID: 4048590; ID: 326682415; ID: 173932849); data from Euromammals87 can be accessed by logging into their website or via a contact form at https://euromammals.org/ (Capra ibex; Capreolus capreolus; Cervus elaphus; Lynx lynx; Sus scrofa); or can be obtained from data providers upon request through the corresponding author. Source data are provided with this paper.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Hebblewhite M Haydon DT Distinguishing technology from biology: a critical review of the use of GPS telemetry data in ecology Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2010 365 2303 2312 10.1098/rstb.2010.0087
Hebblewhite, M. & Haydon, D. T. Distinguishing technology from biology: a critical review of the use of GPS telemetry data in ecology. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 365, 2303–2312 (2010).10.1098/rstb.2010.0087
2. Nathan R A movement ecology paradigm for unifying organismal movement research Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 2008 105 19052 19059 10.1073/pnas.0800375105 19060196
Nathan, R. et al. A movement ecology paradigm for unifying organismal movement research. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 19052–19059 (2008).19060196 10.1073/pnas.0800375105
3. Jeltsch F Integrating movement ecology with biodiversity research—exploring new avenues to address spatiotemporal biodiversity dynamics Mov. Ecol. 2013 1 6 10.1186/2051-3933-1-6 25709820
Jeltsch, F. et al. Integrating movement ecology with biodiversity research—exploring new avenues to address spatiotemporal biodiversity dynamics. Mov. Ecol. 1, 6 (2013).25709820 10.1186/2051-3933-1-6
4. Schlägel UE Movement-mediated community assembly and coexistence Biol. Rev. 2020 95 1073 1096 10.1111/brv.12600 32627362
Schlägel, U. E. et al. Movement-mediated community assembly and coexistence. Biol. Rev. 95, 1073–1096 (2020).32627362 10.1111/brv.12600
5. Allen, A. M. & Singh, N. J. Linking movement ecology with wildlife management and conservation. Front. Ecol. Evol. 3, 155 (2016).
6. Handcock R Monitoring animal behaviour and environmental interactions using wireless sensor networks, GPS collars and satellite remote sensing Sensors 2009 9 3586 3603 10.3390/s90503586 22412327
Handcock, R. et al. Monitoring animal behaviour and environmental interactions using wireless sensor networks, GPS collars and satellite remote sensing. Sensors 9, 3586–3603 (2009).22412327 10.3390/s90503586
7. Kays, R., Crofoot, M. C., Jetz, W. & Wikelski, M. Terrestrial animal tracking as an eye on life and planet. Science 348, 6340 (2015).
8. Jetz W Tertitski G Kays R Mueller U Wikelski M Biological earth observation with animal sensors Trend. Ecol. Evol. 2022 37 719 724 10.1016/j.tree.2022.04.012
Jetz, W., Tertitski, G., Kays, R., Mueller, U. & Wikelski, M. Biological earth observation with animal sensors. Trend. Ecol. Evol. 37, 719–724 (2022).10.1016/j.tree.2022.04.012
9. Nathan, R. et al. Big-data approaches lead to an increased understanding of the ecology of animal movement. Science 375, eabg1780 (2022).
10. Wilmers CC The golden age of bio-logging: how animal-borne sensors are advancing the frontiers of ecology Ecology 2015 96 1741 1753 10.1890/14-1401.1 26378296
Wilmers, C. C. et al. The golden age of bio-logging: how animal-borne sensors are advancing the frontiers of ecology. Ecology 96, 1741–1753 (2015).26378296 10.1890/14-1401.1
11. Hughey LF Hein AM Strandburg-Peshkin A Jensen FH Challenges and solutions for studying collective animal behaviour in the wild Philos.Trans. R Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2018 373 20170005 10.1098/rstb.2017.0005
Hughey, L. F., Hein, A. M., Strandburg-Peshkin, A. & Jensen, F. H. Challenges and solutions for studying collective animal behaviour in the wild. Philos.Trans. R Soc. B Biol. Sci. 373, 20170005 (2018).10.1098/rstb.2017.0005
12. Wilson RP Estimates for energy expenditure in free-living animals using acceleration proxies: a reappraisal J. Animal Ecol. 2020 89 161 172 10.1111/1365-2656.13040
Wilson, R. P. et al. Estimates for energy expenditure in free-living animals using acceleration proxies: a reappraisal. J. Animal Ecol. 89, 161–172 (2020).10.1111/1365-2656.13040
13. Qasem L Tri-axial dynamic acceleration as a proxy for animal energy expenditure; should we be summing values or calculating the vector? PLoS ONE 2012 7 e31187 10.1371/journal.pone.0031187 22363576
Qasem, L. et al. Tri-axial dynamic acceleration as a proxy for animal energy expenditure; should we be summing values or calculating the vector? PLoS ONE 7, e31187 (2012).22363576 10.1371/journal.pone.0031187
14. Martín López LM Miller PJO Aguilar de Soto N Johnson M Gait switches in deep-diving beaked whales: biomechanical strategies for long-duration dives J. Exp. Biol. 2015 218 1325 1338 10.1242/jeb.106013 25954042
Martín López, L. M., Miller, P. J. O., Aguilar de Soto, N. & Johnson, M. Gait switches in deep-diving beaked whales: biomechanical strategies for long-duration dives. J. Exp. Biol. 218, 1325–1338 (2015).25954042 10.1242/jeb.106013
15. Gunner RM A new direction for differentiating animal activity based on measuring angular velocity about the yaw axis Ecol. Evol. 2020 10 7872 7886 10.1002/ece3.6515 32760571
Gunner, R. M. et al. A new direction for differentiating animal activity based on measuring angular velocity about the yaw axis. Ecol. Evol. 10, 7872–7886 (2020).32760571 10.1002/ece3.6515
16. Wilson RP Moving towards acceleration for estimates of activity-specific metabolic rate in free-living animals: the case of the cormorant J. Animal Ecol. 2006 75 1081 1090 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01127.x
Wilson, R. P. et al. Moving towards acceleration for estimates of activity-specific metabolic rate in free-living animals: the case of the cormorant. J. Animal Ecol. 75, 1081–1090 (2006).10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01127.x
17. Gleiss AC Wilson RP Shepard ELC Making overall dynamic body acceleration work: on the theory of acceleration as a proxy for energy expenditure Methods Ecol. Evol. 2011 2 23 33 10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00057.x
Gleiss, A. C., Wilson, R. P. & Shepard, E. L. C. Making overall dynamic body acceleration work: on the theory of acceleration as a proxy for energy expenditure. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2, 23–33 (2011).10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00057.x
18. Cooke SJ Biotelemetry: a mechanistic approach to ecology Trend Ecol. Evol. 2004 19 334 343 10.1016/j.tree.2004.04.003
Cooke, S. J. et al. Biotelemetry: a mechanistic approach to ecology. Trend Ecol. Evol. 19, 334–343 (2004).10.1016/j.tree.2004.04.003
19. McGowan J Integrating research using animal-borne telemetry with the needs of conservation management J. Appl. Ecol. 2017 54 423 429 10.1111/1365-2664.12755
McGowan, J. et al. Integrating research using animal-borne telemetry with the needs of conservation management. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 423–429 (2017).10.1111/1365-2664.12755
20. Godfrey, J. & Bryant, D. Effects of radio transmitters: review of recent radio-tracking studies. In Conservation Applications of Mmeasuring Energy Expenditure of New Zealand Birds: Assessing Habitat Quality and Costs of Carrying Radio Transmitters. (ed. Williams, M.) 83–95 (Department of Conservation, 2003).
21. Mech, D. L. & Barber, S. M. A Critique of Wildlife Radio-Tracking and Its Use in National Parks: a Report to the National Park Service, US Geological Survey. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/93895 (2002).
22. Ropert-Coudert, Y. & Wilson, R. Subjectivity in bio-logging science: do logged data mislead? Mem. Nat. Inst. Polar Res. 58, 23–33 (2004).
23. Healy M Chiaradia A Kirkwood R Dann P Balance: a neglected factor when attaching external devices to penguins Memoirs Nat. Inst. Polar Res. 2004 Special Issue 179 182
Healy, M., Chiaradia, A., Kirkwood, R. & Dann, P. Balance: a neglected factor when attaching external devices to penguins. Memoirs Nat. Inst. Polar Res. Special Issue, 179–182 (2004).
24. Powell RA Proulx G Trapping and marking terrestrial mammals for research: integrating ethics, performance criteria, techniques, and common sense ILAR J. 2003 44 259 276 10.1093/ilar.44.4.259 13130157
Powell, R. A. & Proulx, G. Trapping and marking terrestrial mammals for research: integrating ethics, performance criteria, techniques, and common sense. ILAR J. 44, 259–276 (2003).13130157 10.1093/ilar.44.4.259
25. Iossa G Soulsbury C Harris S Mammal trapping: a review of animal welfare standards of killing and restraining traps Animal Welfare 2007 16 335 352 10.1017/S0962728600027159
Iossa, G., Soulsbury, C. & Harris, S. Mammal trapping: a review of animal welfare standards of killing and restraining traps. Animal Welfare 16, 335–352 (2007).10.1017/S0962728600027159
26. Morellet N The effect of capture on ranging behaviour and activity of the European Roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) Wildlife Biol. 2009 15 278 287 10.2981/08-084
Morellet, N. et al. The effect of capture on ranging behaviour and activity of the European Roe deer (Capreolus capreolus). Wildlife Biol. 15, 278–287 (2009).10.2981/08-084
27. Northrup JM Anderson CR Wittemyer G Effects of helicopter capture and handling on movement behavior of mule deer J. Wildlife Manag. 2014 78 731 738 10.1002/jwmg.705
Northrup, J. M., Anderson, C. R. & Wittemyer, G. Effects of helicopter capture and handling on movement behavior of mule deer. J. Wildlife Manag. 78, 731–738 (2014).10.1002/jwmg.705
28. Brogi, R. et al. Capture effects in wild boar: a multifaceted behavioural investigation. Wildlife Biol. 2019, 1–10 (2019).
29. Theil PK Coutant AE Olesen CR Seasonal changes and activity-dependent variation in heart rate of Roe deer J. Mammal. 2004 85 245 253 10.1644/1545-1542(2004)085<0245:SCAAVI>2.0.CO;2
Theil, P. K., Coutant, A. E. & Olesen, C. R. Seasonal changes and activity-dependent variation in heart rate of Roe deer. J. Mammal. 85, 245–253 (2004).10.1644/1545-1542(2004)085<0245:SCAAVI>2.0.CO;2
30. Grandin T Shivley C How farm animals react and perceive stressful situations such as handling, restraint, and transport Animals 2015 5 1233 1251 10.3390/ani5040409 26633523
Grandin, T. & Shivley, C. How farm animals react and perceive stressful situations such as handling, restraint, and transport. Animals 5, 1233–1251 (2015).26633523 10.3390/ani5040409
31. Bergvall UA Settle down! ranging behaviour responses of Roe deer to different capture and release methods Animals 2021 11 3299 10.3390/ani11113299 34828030
Bergvall, U. A. et al. Settle down! ranging behaviour responses of Roe deer to different capture and release methods. Animals 11, 3299 (2021).34828030 10.3390/ani11113299
32. Cattet M Boulanger J Stenhouse G Powell RA Reynolds-Hogland MJ An evaluation of long-term capture effects in ursids: implications for wildlife welfare and research J. Mammal. 2008 89 973 990 10.1644/08-MAMM-A-095.1
Cattet, M., Boulanger, J., Stenhouse, G., Powell, R. A. & Reynolds-Hogland, M. J. An evaluation of long-term capture effects in ursids: implications for wildlife welfare and research. J. Mammal. 89, 973–990 (2008).10.1644/08-MAMM-A-095.1
33. Alibhai SK Jewell ZC Towindo SS Effects of immobilization on fertility in female black rhino (Diceros bicornis) J. Zool. 2001 253 333 345 10.1017/S0952836901000309
Alibhai, S. K., Jewell, Z. C. & Towindo, S. S. Effects of immobilization on fertility in female black rhino (Diceros bicornis). J. Zool. 253, 333–345 (2001).10.1017/S0952836901000309
34. Harcourt RG Turner E Hall A Waas JR Hindell M Effects of capture stress on free-ranging, reproductively active male Weddell seals J. Comp. Physiol. A 2010 196 147 154 10.1007/s00359-009-0501-0
Harcourt, R. G., Turner, E., Hall, A., Waas, J. R. & Hindell, M. Effects of capture stress on free-ranging, reproductively active male Weddell seals. J. Comp. Physiol. A 196, 147–154 (2010).10.1007/s00359-009-0501-0
35. Salvo, A. D. Chemical and physical restraint of African wild animals. J. Wildlife Dis. 58, 951–953 (2022).
36. Pelletier F Hogg JT Festa-Bianchet M Effect of chemical immobilization on social status of bighorn rams Animal Behav. 2004 67 1163 1165 10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.07.009
Pelletier, F., Hogg, J. T. & Festa-Bianchet, M. Effect of chemical immobilization on social status of bighorn rams. Animal Behav. 67, 1163–1165 (2004).10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.07.009
37. Brivio F Grignolio S Sica N Cerise S Bassano B Assessing the impact of capture on wild animals: the case study of chemical immobilisation on Alpine ibex PLoS ONE 2015 10 e0130957 10.1371/journal.pone.0130957 26111118
Brivio, F., Grignolio, S., Sica, N., Cerise, S. & Bassano, B. Assessing the impact of capture on wild animals: the case study of chemical immobilisation on Alpine ibex. PLoS ONE 10, e0130957 (2015).26111118 10.1371/journal.pone.0130957
38. Arnemo JM Risk of capture-related mortality in large free-ranging mammals: experiences from Scandinavia Wildlife Biol. 2006 12 109 113 10.2981/0909-6396(2006)12[109:ROCMIL]2.0.CO;2
Arnemo, J. M. et al. Risk of capture-related mortality in large free-ranging mammals: experiences from Scandinavia. Wildlife Biol. 12, 109–113 (2006).10.2981/0909-6396(2006)12[109:ROCMIL]2.0.CO;2
39. Jacques CN Evaluating ungulate mortality associated with helicopter net-gun captures in the Northern great plains J. Wildlife Manag. 2009 73 1282 1291 10.2193/2009-039
Jacques, C. N. et al. Evaluating ungulate mortality associated with helicopter net-gun captures in the Northern great plains. J. Wildlife Manag. 73, 1282–1291 (2009).10.2193/2009-039
40. Wilson, R. P. et al. Animal lifestyle affects acceptable mass limits for attached tags. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 288, 20212005 (2021).
41. McIntyre T Animal telemetry: tagging effects Science 2015 349 596 597 10.1126/science.349.6248.596-b 26250677
McIntyre, T. Animal telemetry: tagging effects. Science 349, 596–597 (2015).26250677 10.1126/science.349.6248.596-b
42. Brooks C Bonyongo C Harris S Effects of global positioning system collar weight on zebra behavior and location error J. Wildlife Manag. 2008 72 527 534 10.2193/2007-061
Brooks, C., Bonyongo, C. & Harris, S. Effects of global positioning system collar weight on zebra behavior and location error. J. Wildlife Manag. 72, 527–534 (2008).10.2193/2007-061
43. Stabach JA Short-term effects of GPS collars on the activity, behavior, and adrenal response of scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx dammah) PLoS ONE 2020 15 e0221843 10.1371/journal.pone.0221843 32045413
Stabach, J. A. et al. Short-term effects of GPS collars on the activity, behavior, and adrenal response of scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx dammah). PLoS ONE 15, e0221843 (2020).32045413 10.1371/journal.pone.0221843
44. Wilson RP McMahon CR Measuring devices on wild animals: what constitutes acceptable practice? Front. Ecol. Environ. 2006 4 147 154 10.1890/1540-9295(2006)004[0147:MDOWAW]2.0.CO;2
Wilson, R. P. & McMahon, C. R. Measuring devices on wild animals: what constitutes acceptable practice? Front. Ecol. Environ. 4, 147–154 (2006).10.1890/1540-9295(2006)004[0147:MDOWAW]2.0.CO;2
45. van de Bunte W Weerman J Hof AR Potential effects of GPS collars on the behaviour of two red pandas (Ailurus fulgens) in Rotterdam Zoo PLoS ONE 2021 16 e0252456 10.1371/journal.pone.0252456 34086742
van de Bunte, W., Weerman, J. & Hof, A. R. Potential effects of GPS collars on the behaviour of two red pandas (Ailurus fulgens) in Rotterdam Zoo. PLoS ONE 16, e0252456 (2021).34086742 10.1371/journal.pone.0252456
46. Becciolini V Lanini F Ponzetta MP Impact of capture and chemical immobilization on the spatial behaviour of red deer Cervus elaphus hinds Wildlife Biol. 2019 2019 wlb.00499
Becciolini, V., Lanini, F. & Ponzetta, M. P. Impact of capture and chemical immobilization on the spatial behaviour of red deer Cervus elaphus hinds. Wildlife Biol. 2019, wlb.00499 (2019).
47. Mortensen RM Rosell F Long-term capture and handling effects on body condition, reproduction and survival in a semi-aquatic mammal Sci. Rep. 2020 10 17886 10.1038/s41598-020-74933-w 33087816
Mortensen, R. M. & Rosell, F. Long-term capture and handling effects on body condition, reproduction and survival in a semi-aquatic mammal. Sci. Rep. 10, 17886 (2020).33087816 10.1038/s41598-020-74933-w
48. Chi, D., Chester, D., Ranger, W. & Gilbert, B. Effects of capture procedures on black bear activity at an Alaskan Salmon stream. Ursus 10, 563–569 (1998).
49. Hawkins P Bio-logging and animal welfare: practical refinements Mem. Natl Inst. Polar Res. Spec. Issue 2004 58 58 68
Hawkins, P. Bio-logging and animal welfare: practical refinements. Mem. Natl Inst. Polar Res. Spec. Issue 58, 58–68 (2004).
50. Gehrt SD Anchor C White LA Home range and landscape use of coyotes in a metropolitan landscape: conflict or coexistence? J. Mammal. 2009 90 1045 1057 10.1644/08-MAMM-A-277.1
Gehrt, S. D., Anchor, C. & White, L. A. Home range and landscape use of coyotes in a metropolitan landscape: conflict or coexistence? J. Mammal. 90, 1045–1057 (2009).10.1644/08-MAMM-A-277.1
51. Prange S Gehrt SD Wiggers EP Influences of anthropogenic resources on Raccoon (Procyon lotor) movements and spatial distribution J. Mammal. 2004 85 483 490 10.1644/BOS-121
Prange, S., Gehrt, S. D. & Wiggers, E. P. Influences of anthropogenic resources on Raccoon (Procyon lotor) movements and spatial distribution. J. Mammal. 85, 483–490 (2004).10.1644/BOS-121
52. Samia DSM Nakagawa S Nomura F Rangel TF Blumstein DT Increased tolerance to humans among disturbed wildlife Nat. Commun. 2015 6 8877 10.1038/ncomms9877 26568451
Samia, D. S. M., Nakagawa, S., Nomura, F., Rangel, T. F. & Blumstein, D. T. Increased tolerance to humans among disturbed wildlife. Nat. Commun. 6, 8877 (2015).26568451 10.1038/ncomms9877
53. Tucker MA Moving in the anthropocene: global reductions in terrestrial mammalian movements Science 2018 359 466 469 10.1126/science.aam9712 29371471
Tucker, M. A. et al. Moving in the anthropocene: global reductions in terrestrial mammalian movements. Science 359, 466–469 (2018).29371471 10.1126/science.aam9712
54. Ciuti S Effects of humans on behaviour of wildlife exceed those of natural predators in a landscape of fear PLoS ONE 2012 7 e50611 10.1371/journal.pone.0050611 23226330
Ciuti, S. et al. Effects of humans on behaviour of wildlife exceed those of natural predators in a landscape of fear. PLoS ONE 7, e50611 (2012).23226330 10.1371/journal.pone.0050611
55. Gaynor KM Hojnowski CE Carter NH Brashares JS The influence of human disturbance on wildlife nocturnality Science 2018 360 1232 1235 10.1126/science.aar7121 29903973
Gaynor, K. M., Hojnowski, C. E., Carter, N. H. & Brashares, J. S. The influence of human disturbance on wildlife nocturnality. Science 360, 1232–1235 (2018).29903973 10.1126/science.aar7121
56. Chinnadurai SK Strahl-Heldreth D Fiorello CV Harms CA Best-practice guidelines for field-based surgery and anesthesia of free-ranging wildlife. I. Anesthesia and analgesia J. Wildlife Dis. 2016 52 S14 S27 10.7589/52.2S.S14
Chinnadurai, S. K., Strahl-Heldreth, D., Fiorello, C. V. & Harms, C. A. Best-practice guidelines for field-based surgery and anesthesia of free-ranging wildlife. I. Anesthesia and analgesia. J. Wildlife Dis. 52, S14–S27 (2016).10.7589/52.2S.S14
57. Neumann W Ericsson G Dettki H Arnemo JM Effect of immobilizations on the activity and space use of female moose (Alces alces) Can. J. Zool. 2011 89 1013 1018 10.1139/z11-076
Neumann, W., Ericsson, G., Dettki, H. & Arnemo, J. M. Effect of immobilizations on the activity and space use of female moose (Alces alces). Can. J. Zool. 89, 1013–1018 (2011).10.1139/z11-076
58. Woodroffe R Vincent A Mother’s little helpers: patterns of male care in mammals Trend. Ecol. Evol. 1994 9 294 297 10.1016/0169-5347(94)90033-7
Woodroffe, R. & Vincent, A. Mother’s little helpers: patterns of male care in mammals. Trend. Ecol. Evol. 9, 294–297 (1994).10.1016/0169-5347(94)90033-7
59. Roche, D. G., Careau, V. & Binning, S. A. Demystifying animal ‘personality’ (or not): why individual variation matters to experimental biologists. J. Exp. Biol. 219, 3832–3843 (2016).
60. Sloan Wilson D Clark AB Coleman K Dearstyne T Shyness and boldness in humans and other animals Trend. Ecol. Evol. 1994 9 442 446 10.1016/0169-5347(94)90134-1
Sloan Wilson, D., Clark, A. B., Coleman, K. & Dearstyne, T. Shyness and boldness in humans and other animals. Trend. Ecol. Evol. 9, 442–446 (1994).10.1016/0169-5347(94)90134-1
61. Schirmer A Herde A Eccard JA Dammhahn M Individuals in space: personality-dependent space use, movement and microhabitat use facilitate individual spatial niche specialization Oecologia 2019 189 647 660 10.1007/s00442-019-04365-5 30826867
Schirmer, A., Herde, A., Eccard, J. A. & Dammhahn, M. Individuals in space: personality-dependent space use, movement and microhabitat use facilitate individual spatial niche specialization. Oecologia 189, 647–660 (2019).30826867 10.1007/s00442-019-04365-5
62. Lingle S Pellis S Fight or flight? antipredator behavior and the escalation of coyote encounters with deer Oecologia 2002 131 154 164 10.1007/s00442-001-0858-4 28547505
Lingle, S. & Pellis, S. Fight or flight? antipredator behavior and the escalation of coyote encounters with deer. Oecologia 131, 154–164 (2002).28547505 10.1007/s00442-001-0858-4
63. Quick JC Spielberger CD Walter Bradford Cannon: pioneer of stress research Int. J. Stress Manag. 1994 1 141 143 10.1007/BF01857607
Quick, J. C. & Spielberger, C. D. Walter Bradford Cannon: pioneer of stress research. Int. J. Stress Manag. 1, 141–143 (1994).10.1007/BF01857607
64. Bracha SH Freeze, flight, fight, fright, faint: adaptationist perspectives on the acute stress response spectrum CNS Spectr. 2004 9 679 685 10.1017/S1092852900001954 15337864
Bracha, S. H. Freeze, flight, fight, fright, faint: adaptationist perspectives on the acute stress response spectrum. CNS Spectr. 9, 679–685 (2004).15337864 10.1017/S1092852900001954
65. Tablado Z Jenni L Determinants of uncertainty in wildlife responses to human disturbance Biol. Rev. 2017 92 216 233 10.1111/brv.12224 26467755
Tablado, Z. & Jenni, L. Determinants of uncertainty in wildlife responses to human disturbance. Biol. Rev. 92, 216–233 (2017).26467755 10.1111/brv.12224
66. Santini L One strategy does not fit all: determinants of urban adaptation in mammals Ecol. Lett. 2019 22 365 376 10.1111/ele.13199 30575254
Santini, L. et al. One strategy does not fit all: determinants of urban adaptation in mammals. Ecol. Lett. 22, 365–376 (2019).30575254 10.1111/ele.13199
67. Milner JM Van Beest FM Schmidt KT Brook RK Storaas T To feed or not to feed? evidence of the intended and unintended effects of feeding wild ungulates J. Wildlife Manag. 2014 78 1322 1334 10.1002/jwmg.798
Milner, J. M., Van Beest, F. M., Schmidt, K. T., Brook, R. K. & Storaas, T. To feed or not to feed? evidence of the intended and unintended effects of feeding wild ungulates. J. Wildlife Manag. 78, 1322–1334 (2014).10.1002/jwmg.798
68. Alberti M Global urban signatures of phenotypic change in animal and plant populations Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 2017 114 8951 8956 10.1073/pnas.1606034114 28049817
Alberti, M. et al. Global urban signatures of phenotypic change in animal and plant populations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 114, 8951–8956 (2017).28049817 10.1073/pnas.1606034114
69. Tucker MA Behavioral responses of terrestrial mammals to COVID-19 lockdowns Science 2023 380 1059 1064 10.1126/science.abo6499 37289888
Tucker, M. A. et al. Behavioral responses of terrestrial mammals to COVID-19 lockdowns. Science 380, 1059–1064 (2023).37289888 10.1126/science.abo6499
70. Erb PL McShea WJ Guralnick RP Anthropogenic influences on macro-level mammal occupancy in the Appalachian trail corridor PLoS ONE 2012 7 e42574 10.1371/journal.pone.0042574 22880038
Erb, P. L., McShea, W. J. & Guralnick, R. P. Anthropogenic influences on macro-level mammal occupancy in the Appalachian trail corridor. PLoS ONE 7, e42574 (2012).22880038 10.1371/journal.pone.0042574
71. Tuomainen U Candolin U Behavioural responses to human-induced environmental change Biol. Rev. 2011 86 640 657 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2010.00164.x 20977599
Tuomainen, U. & Candolin, U. Behavioural responses to human-induced environmental change. Biol. Rev. 86, 640–657 (2011).20977599 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2010.00164.x
72. Gaynor KM An applied ecology of fear framework: linking theory to conservation practice Animal Conserv. 2021 24 308 321 10.1111/acv.12629
Gaynor, K. M. et al. An applied ecology of fear framework: linking theory to conservation practice. Animal Conserv. 24, 308–321 (2021).10.1111/acv.12629
73. Martínez-Abraín A Quevedo M Serrano D Translocation in relict shy-selected animal populations: program success versus prevention of wildlife-human conflict Biol. Conserv. 2022 268 109519 10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109519
Martínez-Abraín, A., Quevedo, M. & Serrano, D. Translocation in relict shy-selected animal populations: program success versus prevention of wildlife-human conflict. Biol. Conserv. 268, 109519 (2022).10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109519
74. Gallagher CA Grimm V Kyhn LA Kinze CC Nabe-Nielsen J Movement and seasonal energetics mediate vulnerability to disturbance in marine mammal populations Am. Nat. 2021 197 296 311 10.1086/712798 33625969
Gallagher, C. A., Grimm, V., Kyhn, L. A., Kinze, C. C. & Nabe-Nielsen, J. Movement and seasonal energetics mediate vulnerability to disturbance in marine mammal populations. Am. Nat. 197, 296–311 (2021).33625969 10.1086/712798
75. Nabe-Nielsen, J. et al. Predicting the impacts of anthropogenic disturbances on marine populations. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12563 (2018).
76. Pirotta, E. et al. Understanding the population consequences of disturbance. Ecol. Evol. 8, 9934–9946 (2018).
77. Wikelski, M., Davidson, S. C. & Kays, R. The Movebank Data Repository. www.movebank.org (2020).
78. Kranstauber, B., Smolla, M. & Scharf, A. Move: Visualizing and Analyzing Animal Track Data. https://cran.r-project.org/package=move (2020).
79. Scharf, A. moveACC: Visualitation and Analysis of Acceleration Data (Mainly for eObs Tags). https://gitlab.com/anneks/moveACC/ (2018).
80. Calenge C The package “adehabitat” for the R software: A tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals Ecol. Model. 2006 197 516 519 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.03.017
Calenge, C. The package “adehabitat” for the R software: A tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecol. Model. 197, 516–519 (2006).10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.03.017
81. McGowan PJK Mapping the terrestrial human footprint Nature 2016 537 172 173 10.1038/537172a 27604944
McGowan, P. J. K. Mapping the terrestrial human footprint. Nature 537, 172–173 (2016).27604944 10.1038/537172a
82. Venter O Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation Nat. Commun. 2016 7 12558 10.1038/ncomms12558 27552116
Venter, O. et al. Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nat. Commun. 7, 12558 (2016).27552116 10.1038/ncomms12558
83. Wood, S. N. Generalized Additive Models 2nd edn, Vol. 496 (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2017).
84. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).
85. Faurby S PHYLACINE 1.2: the phylogenetic Atlas of mammal macroecology Ecology 2018 99 2626 2626 10.1002/ecy.2443 29989146
Faurby, S. et al. PHYLACINE 1.2: the phylogenetic Atlas of mammal macroecology. Ecology 99, 2626–2626 (2018).29989146 10.1002/ecy.2443
86. Barton, K. MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. R Package Version 1.15.6. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/MuMIn/MuMIn.pdf (2016).
87. Urbano, F. & Cagnacci, F. Data management and sharing for collaborative science: lessons learnt from the euromammals iInitiative. Front. Ecol. Evol. 9, 727023 (2021).
88. Gorelick, N. et al. Google earth engine: planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sens. Environ. 202, 18–27 (2017).
