Back

Drivers of space use in a large semi-urban feral ungulate under seasonally fluctuating resource conditions

Bhattacharjee, D.; Flay, K. J.; Mumby, H. S.; Zhang, J.; Wu, J.; McElligott, A. G.

2026-06-08 zoology
10.64898/2026.06.03.729827 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Resource scarcity prompts animals to adjust their space use in ways that enhance their survival. In wild herbivores, seasonal habitat shifts are well studied; however, little is known about how large herbivores navigate human-dominated landscapes under fluctuating resource conditions. In Hong Kong, feral water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis; henceforth buffalo) experience declines in body condition score during the dry season. While buffalo expand spatial ranges in the dry season, whether this expansion reflects access to improved ecological conditions, and how key anthropogenic factors (like distance to roads and human density) further influence space use, remains understudied. We observed six buffalo herds (n=92 known individuals) across one wet (July-September 2023) and one dry (January-March 2024) season. We recorded herd locations and extracted remotely sensed habitat and environmental data. We used Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) as a proxy of vegetation productivity and included elevation, distance to roads, and human density as additional predictors. We hypothesized that dry-season space use would shift toward higher vegetation productivity, and that anthropogenic factors would have weak influence on space use due to the adaption of buffalo in human-dominated landscapes. We found that buffalo used areas with higher vegetation productivity and higher elevation in the dry season than in the wet. Distance to roads and human density had no detectable effect. Our findings reveal that space use by a large herbivore like buffalo in human-dominated landscapes is strategic and resource driven, and that these seasonal shifts may have important implications for local biodiversity and human-animal interactions.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Landscape Ecology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
15.2%
2
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 14%
13.2%
3
Biological Conservation
46 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.9%
4
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
5.6%
5
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 18%
5.2%
6
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 25%
4.9%
50% of probability mass above
7
American Journal of Primatology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.3%
8
Global Ecology and Conservation
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.2%
9
Conservation Science and Practice
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.1%
10
Peer Community Journal
281 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.5%
11
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 10%
2.5%
12
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
466 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.4%
13
Animal Conservation
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
14
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
15
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
393 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
16
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 26%
1.9%
17
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
68 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.7%
18
Science of The Total Environment
186 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
19
Ecology
85 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
20
Biology Open
156 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
21
Journal of Avian Biology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.1%
22
Animals
23 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
23
Ecology and Evolution
267 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
24
Animal Behaviour
73 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.0%
25
One Health
29 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
26
Journal of Biogeography
46 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
27
Primates
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%