DOI: 10.5061/dryad.d7wm37q2d
title: Armadillo detections in Northwest Arkansas

description: As the human footprint upon the landscape expands, wildlife seeking to
 avoid human contact are losing the option of altering their spatial
 distribution and instead are shifting their daily activity patterns to be
 active at different times than humans.  In this study, we used
 game cameras to evaluate how human development and activity were related
 to the daily activity patterns of the nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus
 novemcinctus) along an urban to rural gradient in Arkansas, USA during the
 winter of 2020-2021.  We found that armadillos had substantial
 behavioral plasticity in regard to the timing of their activity patterns;
 &gt;95% of armadillo activity was nocturnal at six of the study sites
 whereas between 30 and 60% of activity occurred during the day at 3 other
 sites.  The likelihood of diurnal armadillo activity was best
 explained by the distance to downtown Fayetteville (the nearest population
 center) and estimated ambient sound level (both indices of human activity)
 with armadillos being most active during the day at quiet sites far from
 Fayetteville.  Furthermore, armadillo activity occurred later
 during the night period (minutes after sunset)at sites near downtown and
 with higher anthropogenic sound.  Anecdotal evidence suggests
 that the observed activity shift may be in response to not only human
 activity but the presence of domestic dogs.  Our results provide
 further evidence that human activity has subtle nonlethal impacts on even
 common, widespread wildlife species.  Because armadillos have low
 body temperatures and basal metabolism, being active during cold winter
 nights likely has measurable fitness costs.  Nature reserves near
 human population centers may not serve as safe harbors for wildlife as we
 intend, and managers could benefit from considering these nonlethal
 responses in how they manage recreation and visitation in these natural
 areas.
description: We used motion-triggered wildlife game cameras to document the
 presence and activity patterns of nine-banded armadillos at each study
 site. We used a combination of Spypoint Force Dark (Spypoint Inc,
 Victoriaville, Quebec, Canada) and Browning Strike Force (Browning,
 Morgan, Utah, USA) model cameras. To determine camera locations, we
 overlaid each study site with a series of 150 m x 150 m grids. Each grid
 was assigned a number and we randomly chose grids in which cameras would
 be placed. No grid received more than one camera at a time although at
 some sites multiple cameras were placed within the same grid at different
 times of the year. We used this approach to ensure cameras were dispersed
 across the study sites. Within selected grids, we placed cameras in
 locations with clear lines of sight for at least 15 m and in locations
 that would not be visible from roads or trails to avoid theft or the
 photography of people. We placed cameras on either trees or tripods 50 cm
 above the ground. We programmed cameras to operate 24 hrs per day, take
 bursts of 3 photos at each trigger, and to reset after 5 seconds. We
 downloaded memory cards from cameras approximately every 2 weeks. Due to
 constraints on the number of cameras, cameras were not deployed at all
 sites simultaneously and not all sites had equal sampling effort. At each
 specific location where a camera was deployed, we recorded the coordinates
 so we could later use a GIS (ArcMap 10.2; ESRI Inc, Redlands, CA, USA) to
 calculate landscape variables around each camera. We
 reviewed all photographs using the Timelapse 2.0 software (Greenberg et
 al. 2019). Timelapse 2.0 allowed us to rapidly review photographs, extract
 metadata (date, time), and to assign species identity to each group of
 photographs. Timelapse 2.0 also allowed us to group photographs into
 sequences. We assumed all photographs taken within 5 min of one another
 were one sequence of the same individual and these photographs were
 combined into one unique detection to reduce double-counting individuals.
 We chose 5 min for the sequence length because most detections of
 armadillos foraging in front of cameras lasted for less than 5 min and
 allowed even slow-moving individuals to move out of range of the camera.
 We scored each armadillo detection as occurring during day or night based
 on the sunrise and sunset time for the 15<sup>th</sup> day of
 that month so that our definitions of diurnal and nocturnal activity
 varied across the study to account for changing daylengths. We used the
 time of the first armadillo detection within the sequence to assign the
 timing of activity.
description: See attached file to understand data sheet.