ArticlePloS one2025
Assessing anthropogenic impact on the habitat of threatened rock cavy (Kerodon rupestris) through its alarm calls.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acoustic monitoring is emerging as a key tool in wildlife conservation, especially for species in inaccessible habitats like the rock cavy (Kerodon rupestris), an endangered species native to Brazil's threatened Caatinga biome. Emotional stress from threatening situations affects breathing, heart rate, and vocal muscle tension, altering vocal acoustic parameters. This allows researchers to gauge the animal's environmental perception through its vocalizations. We aimed to evaluate emotional disturbance indicators in free-range rock cavies' vocalizations to suggest an acoustic index during threats. We compared calls from rock cavies in two areas with similar habitats but that differ in terms of anthropic impacts. Area 1 (A1) is near urban areas and disturbed by livestock and dogs, and Area 2 (A2) is farther from urban areas and free from human disturbance. Data on calls and behaviors were collected ad libitum in both areas. The alarm whistle call, making up 73.5% of total calls, was most common. Across 108 observation hours per area, 392 alarm whistle calls were recorded, with more calls in A1 than A2 (223 vs. 169; Chi-square = 29.44, DF = 1, P < 0.001). This resulted in a 32% higher hourly call rate in A1 (2.6 calls/h vs. 1.6 calls/h). Both male and female cavies in A1 had higher high-frequency (F1, 388 = 7.80, P = 0.005) and peak-frequency calls (F1, 388 = 21.32, P < 0.001). Given the similar landscape and resource availability in both areas, the differences in call emission rate and parameters are likely linked to emotional responses to human disturbances in A1. Thus, alarm whistle calls at an hourly rate of 2.6 calls/h or higher, with high-frequency and peak-frequency at or above 7222 Hz and 2603 Hz, can indicate anthropogenic disturbance in the Caatinga biome, aiding remote monitoring efforts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.