Animals' reactions to human activity vary greatly based on their habitat and diet. Larger herbivores, such as deer and moose, became more active in some urban settings while predators like wolves and cougars tended to avoid these areas during lockdowns.
Human activity has a strong effect on wildlife in remote areas.
Human activity has a strong effect on wildlife in remote areas. A new study by Cole Burton and Kaitlyn Gaynor at the University of British Columbia found that animals' reactions to human activity vary greatly based on their habitat and diet. Larger herbivores, such as deer and moose, became more active in some urban settings while predators like wolves and cougars tended to avoid these areas during lockdowns. The study challenges the conventional wisdom that wild animals become more active during pandemic lockdowns.
The study challenges the conventional wisdom that wild animals became more active during pandemic lockdowns.
“We went in with a somewhat simplistic notion,” said Cole Burton, a wildlife ecologist and conservation biologist at the University of British Columbia, who led the research. “You know, humans stop, animals are going to breathe a sigh of relief and move around more naturally. And what we saw was quite different.”
“There’s no ‘one size fits all’ solution when it comes to mitigating the impacts of human activity on wildlife,” said Kaitlyn Gaynor, a wildlife ecologist and conservation biologist at the University of British Columbia.
“There’s enormous variability in how wild mammals responded to changes in human behavior. Carnivores and animals living in remote, rural places were more active when people faded from the landscape, while the opposite was generally true for large herbivores and urban animals.”
“There’s no ‘one size fits all’ solution when it comes to mitigating the impacts of human activity on wildlife.”
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in its portrayal of the effects of pandemic lockdowns on wildlife. The author presents a narrative that suggests all wildlife thrived during the Covid lockdowns when in fact there was enormous variability in how wild mammals responded to changes in human behavior.
The article states 'With humans stuck in their homes, the world was safe again for wild animals, which could now wander freely through cities, parking lots or fields that once might have been crowded with people.' However this is not accurate as there were enormous variability in how wild mammals responded to changes in human behavior.
The article states 'Carnivores and animals living in remote, rural places, for instance, were more active when people faded from the landscape,' but it fails to mention that large herbivores and urban animals had opposite responses.
Fallacies
(75%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(75%)
The author presents a balanced view of the effects of pandemic lockdowns on wildlife. The article acknowledges that while some animals may have benefited from reduced human activity during the lockdowns, others were negatively impacted by changes in behavior and increased presence in certain areas.
Although humans disappeared from some places during the lockdowns, they surged into others,
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Emily Anthes has a conflict of interest on the topic of pandemic lockdowns and its effects on wildlife as she is an anthropologist who studies urban animals. She also mentions her colleague Kaitlyn Gaynor in the article which could indicate that they have a professional affiliation.
Larger prey animals like deer and moose became more active in some urban settings while predators like wolves and cougars tended to avoid these areas.
There was an increase in human activity, for example, in parks and mountains which could explain why many predators retreated from communities.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several examples of an appeal to authority fallacy. The author cites a study conducted by UBC researchers without providing any evidence or context for the validity of the research. Additionally, there are multiple instances where the author uses quotes from experts in their field as if they were authorities on all matters related to wildlife behavior during COVID-19 lockdowns.
The study was conducted by UBC researchers
Dr. Cole Burton says that overall those romantic notions of wildlife “running free” in lockdowns may have been overblown.
. In an unprecedented global study that mobilized over 220 researchers and utilized 5,000 camera traps, experts led by the University of British Columbia (UBC) have shed new light on wildlife behavior in response to human activity.
. The collaborative effort, involving 163 mammal species, reveals that animals’ reactions vary greatly based on their habitat and diet.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that larger herbivores increase their activity around humans while carnivores tend to reduce their presence to avoid potential dangers. However, this statement contradicts itself as it implies that both types of animals are affected by human activity and yet one group is more active than the other which does not make sense.
Larger herbivores increase their activity around humans while carnivores tend to reduce their presence to avoid potential dangers.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the study led by the University of British Columbia and involving over 200 researchers as evidence for their claims about wildlife behavior in response to human activity. However, this does not necessarily mean that the findings are accurate or reliable without further investigation. Additionally, there is a lack of context provided regarding the specific methods used in the study and how it was conducted, which could also affect its validity. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric by stating that popular narratives about wildlife running free while humans sheltered in place did not hold true during the pandemic. This statement may be seen as polarizing and exaggerated, rather than providing a balanced view of the situation.
The study led by the University of British Columbia is cited as evidence for claims about wildlife behavior in response to human activity.
During the lockdowns of the early pandemic, human activity in Venice decreased and carbon emissions dropped.
Larger carnivores were more sensitive to human presence so where human activity was higher, they captured fewer big meat-eating animals like wolves and wolverines. In urbanized areas or places heavily frequented by people, some of these larger carnivores disappeared entirely.
Higher human activity led animals to become more nocturnal in some instances, increasing their nighttime activity.
Accuracy
The study found that humans were not absent everywhere during lockdowns, especially in parks and other greenspaces.
Large herbivores boosted their activity alongside humans in more developed landscapes.
Animals appeared warier of people and were more likely to retreat when human activity ticked up in wilder places. In more developed areas, animals seemed more habituated to people and often either didn't shift their activity level with humans or became more active alongside them.
Deception
(70%)
The article is deceptive in its portrayal of the relationship between humans and animals during lockdowns. The author uses misleading language such as 'nature was healing' when there were no significant positive changes to wildlife behavior or human activity levels. Additionally, the study found that larger carnivores were more sensitive to human presence, which contradicts the idea that nature is healing.
Larger carnivores were more sensitive to human presence, which contradicts the idea that nature is healing.
The article portrays a false narrative of 'nature being healed' when there was no significant positive change in wildlife behavior or human activity levels during lockdowns.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses anecdotes and personal experiences to support their claims without providing any evidence or data to back them up. Additionally, the author makes assumptions about the behavior of animals based on limited information and fails to consider other factors that may be influencing their actions.
The canals of Venice went from a mucky green to translucent cerulean; motorboat traffic along the waterways had stopped and sediment settled out of the water.
Bias
(75%)
The article presents a nuanced relationship between humans and animals during the pandemic lockdowns. The author acknowledges that the memes of nature healing were far too simplistic to capture the full breadth of what really unfolded between humans and animals in the pandemic's early stage. The study found unexpected patterns, such as human presence not reducing everywhere, especially in parks and other greenspaces documented by camera traps. Additionally, larger carnivores were more sensitive to human presence while large herbivores boosted their activity alongside humans.
Human presence did not reduce everywhere
Large herbivores boosted their activity alongside humans
Larger carnivores were more sensitive to human presence
