DOI: 10.5061/dryad.79cnp5j28
title: Livestock activity shifts large herbivore temporal distributions to their crepuscular edges

description: Wildlife species are transitioning to greater crepuscular and nocturnal
 activity in response to high human densities. This plasticity in temporal
 niches may partially mitigate the impacts of human activity but may also
 result in underestimating human effects on species foraging, predator-prey
 relationships, and community level interactions. We deployed
 remote cameras to characterize shifts in herbivore diel activity in
 protected habitat vs pastoralist landscapes. We then compared species
 traits including body mass, dietary preferences, and behavioral
 characteristics as potential predictors of species sensitivity to
 livestock. Our data capture a significant temporal shift away
 from core cattle activity for nearly every herbivore species in our study,
 leading to more crepuscular activity patterns. As livestock were primarily
 diurnal and predators primarily nocturnal in pastoralist habitat, species
 that decreased their overlap with livestock were more likely to increase
 their overlap with potential predators. Other than species’
 typical daytime activity levels, we found no evidence that any particular
 trait significantly predicted temporal shifts in response to livestock.
 Instead, species generally trended toward greater activity levels at dawn,
 suggesting that cattle have a homogenizing effect on community-wide
 activity patterns. Our findings highlight how cohabitation with
 livestock can profoundly alter the temporal niches of wild herbivores.
 Shifts in diel activity patterns may reduce herbivore foraging time or
 efficiency and potentially have cascading shifts on predator-prey
 dynamics. Given that species traits could not predict responses to
 livestock, our analysis suggests that conservation strategies should
 consider each species separately when designing interventions for wildlife
 management.
description: <strong>Camera-Trap Data
 Collection</strong> This study was a comparative assessment of
 species activity patterns in the presence (Mara conservancies) and absence
 (Serengeti National Park) of cattle. Species activity patterns were
 inferred from camera image data. Serengeti camera data was previously
 published on dataDryad (doi: 10.1038/sdata.2015.26). For Mara conservancy
 data, we deployed unpaired, unbaited remote cameras along systematic grids
 in accrodance with Snapshot Serengeti methodology. In the conservancies, a
 total of 63 Cuddeback cameras (Models 1347 and 1279; Cuddeback Inc., Green
 Bay, WI, USA) were spaced at ~1.15 km intervals. Enonkishu housed 21
 cameras from Nov. 2018 to 2022, and the grid was expanded into Ol Choro
 and Lemek conservancies in Aug. 2021. For optimal species detection and
 camera efficiency, cameras captured 3 images per trigger during the day
 and 1 image per trigger at night. Each trigger was considered an
 individual “capture event”, remaining dormant for 1-minute in between
 captures. To insure temporal independence. capture events were filtered to
 remove repeats of the same species at the same camera within 30-minute
 intervals.
description: # Livestock activity shifts large herbivore temporal distributions to
 their crepuscular edges 
 Attached are csv files describing species occurrence in mara conservancy
 camera trap sites. The data has been pre-filtered for temporal
 independence by species occurring within the same 30-minute intervals. ##
 Description of the data and file structure **Mara_Filtered.csv** – List of
 mara conservancy image data filtered at 30-minute intervals for the same
 species for temporal independence. Data columns described as follows:  
 ·       *Capture_id:* A unique identifier for each capture event and
 resultant image set. ·       *Park:* The name of the mara conservancy
 sampled: ENO (Enonkishu), OLC (Ol Choro), and LEM (Lemek). ·      
 *Season:* The numbered batch of images, ~1 year of data (ie: S1, S2, S3…).
 ·       *Site:* The unique alpha-numeric site code each camera trap site
 in the grid. ·       *Roll:* Unique identifier for each memory card swap
 (ie: R1, R2, R3…). ·       *Date:* The date stamp from the image is
 reported in yyyy-mm-dd. ·       *Time:* The time stamp from the image is
 reported in hh:mm:ss. Time zone is UTC + 3:00. Daylight savings time is
 not observed Kenya. ·       *Species*: Species of animal in the capture
 event. Multiple species in a single capture event are represented in
 separate rows.   **Mara_Metadata.csv** – Camera site metadata, including
 habitat characteristics and distance to nearest points of interest. NA
 values indicate habitat metadata not recorded for that camera site. Data
 columns described as follows:   ·       *Park:* The name of the mara
 conservancy sampled: ENO (Enonkishu), OLC (Ol Choro), and LEM (Lemek).
 ·       *Site_ID:* The unique alpha-numeric site code each camera trap
 site in the grid. ·       *Status:* Whether this is the current location
 of the camera site (current), an old location that has since been changed
 (moved), or the camera site has been permanently removed (pulled). ·      
 *Date:* Date that camera site was initially established. ·       *DD_Lat,
 DD_Long:* X and Y coordinates of the site (datum Arc1960, zone 36S)
 ·       *Habitat*: Classification of habitat at camera site (Grassland,
 Open Shrub, Dense Shrub, Forest). ·       *Shade:* Categorical ranking of
 shade over camera trap; 0-4 (4 highest). ·       *Vis_Mean:* Average
 Visibility at camera trap; rangefinders were placed 1.0 m above the ground
 and three readings were taken: one reading directly pointing out in front
 of the camera trap and two slightly angled to either side. ·      
 *Mean_TreeDist:* Averaged distance in meters to ten nearest trees; if no
 trees are present, we used “1500 meters”. ·       *Road:* Distance in
 meters of camera trap to nearest paved road. ·       *Trail:* Distance in
 meters of camera trap to nearest trail. ·       *Settlement:* Distance in
 meters of camera trap to nearest settlement. ·       *Water:* Distance in
 meters of camera trap to nearest body of water (dam, stream, river). ##
 Sharing/Access information Files above include Mara conservancy data only.
 For Serengeti camera image data see: Swanson, Alexandra B. et al. (2016).
 Data from: Snapshot Serengeti, high-frequency annotated camera trap images
 of 40 mammalian species in an African savanna [Dataset]. Dryad.