You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Diversity
Download PDF
  • Editorial
  • Open Access

18 December 2025

Wildlife in Natural and Altered Environments: What Is Special About This Issue?

Department of Animal Biology, Ecology, Parasitology, Edaphology, and Agricultural Chemistry, University of Salamanca, Campus Miguel de Unamuno s/n, 37007 Salamanca, Spain
Diversity2025, 17(12), 870;https://doi.org/10.3390/d17120870
This article belongs to the Special Issue Wildlife in Natural and Altered Environments
Version Notes
Order Reprints
The interaction between humans and the environment often entails the deterioration of the latter triggered by the actions of the former [1]. Among the many consequences [2], alterations such as changes in the use of land [3], pollution [4], the global warming [5] and invasive species [6], as well as certain interactions among these factors [7,8,9], lead to environmental conditions that differ from those found in pristine habitats. This gives rise to particular ecological relationships [10] and, subsequently, evolutionary dynamics [11]. Under the topic “Wildlife in natural and altered environments,” this Special Issue seeks to examine the various consequences of such a habitat differentiation.
Separation of humans from nature often entails desensitization to environmental issues [12] that stems from physical and emotional detachment between the two [13]. In this Special Issue, we feature the work of Jürgens et al. [14], who studied how a person’s background—specifically their previous exposure to nature—largely determines their mental images of different animal species, in turn shaping both the nature and intensity of their reactions to encounters with wildlife. Aligning with this finding, Locquet and Simon’s work [15] confirmed that the preservation of nature requires a global territorial transition that reinforces the links between societies and nature in a way that is financially stable and ecologically sustainable. These pieces of research highlight the necessity of facilitating a reconnection between humans and nature [16] that promotes the social change needed to turn nature preservation into a priority [17].
The preservation of biodiversity requires meticulous knowledge of its spatial distribution [18], considering the relevance of a given species’ habitat for its conservation [19]. In this regard, Cruz-Bazan et al. [20] provide a thorough analysis of the intricate spatial–temporal patterns of mammal abundance in an extreme habitat, namely, the semi-arid regions of Mexico, whose ecological balance is extremely delicate [21]. Habitat selection depends, among other factors, on the availability of the resources used by the species in question [22], which can potentiate competition [23], thus limiting the ability of the species to prosper [24]. In this Special Issue, Kajita and Kajimura [25] demonstrate that dead culms of dwarf bamboo function as refuges for mice, although they do not preclude competitive exclusion between mice species. Also, these refuges favor more careful utilization and selection of more nutritious food sources, illustrating how a given resource can define the ecological relationships among species [25]. Furthermore, Twynham et al. [26] proved that habitat selection depends not only on the distribution of the resource in question but also on how a given species uses it. In their case, bears’ dietary specialization on ungulate neonates defines the extent to which the distribution of the latter determines that of the former [26]. In other cases, however, the scale and intent of distribution studies may have a different focus. Such is the case of the research by Bernotienė et al. [27], which centered on the vertical distribution of Culicoides midges—which can function as vectors for certain pathogens—in temperate forests. Their finding that these midges preferentially occupy the mid and high canopies of the forests they inhabit is of ecological interest but is also relevant from an epidemiological standpoint [27].
The distribution of animal species may change dramatically as a consequence of human alterations to the environment [28], often leading to fragmented populations whose continuity is subject to particular challenges [29]. In this context, Bišćan et al. [30] modeled the role of ecological corridors to ensure connectivity among isolated wolf populations in Croatia, where a strategy based on translocation of individuals along these corridors was predicted to be the most effective. Other consequences of human activities are related to global warming, which is reshaping the dynamics of numerous habitats [31]. In their study, Mullet and Farina [32] analyze the patterns of noise in the ecosystems resulting from the deicing of subarctic ecosystems in North America, where noise peaks in the vicinity of roads due to traffic and wind blocks the sounds animals produce to communicate. These acoustic patterns follow human rhythms and may pose a novel threat to animal communication in areas humans traditionally do not occupy [32]. Global warming can also lead to the proliferation of certain species [33], which can alter the use of space and others’ accessibility to resources [34]. This hypothesis was tested by Troppin and Valenzuela [35], who studied whether the overgrowth of floating vegetation affected the ability of females to produce vitamin D. Although these plants can block insolation on the surface of the water, turtles may use them as basking perches, a behavior that could explain why these turtles’ ability to produce vitamin D is not impaired by plant overgrowth [35]. In like manner, Zamora-Camacho [36] found a positive relationship between locomotor performance and parotoid gland size in toads, which did not differ between animals from agrosystems and natural habitats, again suggesting that certain phenomena are resilient to human alterations of the environment.
All in all, this Special Issue compiles evidence that human activities underlie the appearance of novel ecological interactions that, despite typically following deterioration of the environment, are worthy of analysis and reflection [37]. Accordingly, wildlife in both natural and altered habitats must be continuously assessed and compared, and the interactions and interfaces between them, which are not always easy to distinguish clearly, must be subject to particular attention [38]. Moreover, reversing, stopping, or ameliorating the consequences of global change often entails further alterations of the environment [39], which should be carefully planned [40]. Such planning requires a thorough analysis of these environments and the effects modifying them can trigger [41]. This Special Issue is a valuable contribution to these objectives.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Weston, M.A. Human disturbance. In The Population Ecology and Conservation of Charadrius Plovers; Colwell, M.A., Haig, S.M., Eds.; CRC Press: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 277–310. [Google Scholar]
  2. Walker, L.R. The Biology of Disturbed Habitats; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ramankutty, N.; Coomes, O.T. Land-use regime shifts: An analytical framework and agenda for future land-use research. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Singer, S.F. Global effects of environmental pollution. Eos Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 1970, 51, 476–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Vitousek, P.M. Beyond global warming: Ecology and global change. Ecology 1994, 75, 1861–1876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lean, C.H. Invasive species and natural function in ecology. Synthese 2021, 198, 9315–9333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Moe, S.J.; de Schamphelaere, K.; Clements, W.H.; Sorensen, M.T.; Van den Brink, P.J.; Liess, M. Combined and interactive effects of global climate change and toxicants on populations and communities. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2013, 32, 49–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Robillard, C.M.; Coristine, L.E.; Soares, R.N.; Kerr, J.T. Facilitating climate-change-induced range shifts across continental land-use barriers. Conserv. Biol. 2015, 29, 1586–1595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mainka, S.A.; Howard, G.W. Climate change and invasive species: Double jeopardy. Integr. Zool. 2010, 5, 102–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Parmesan, C. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2006, 37, 637–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Smith, T.B.; Bernatchez, L. Evolutionary change in human-altered environments. Mol. Ecol. 2008, 17, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Harper, C.; Snowden, M. Environment and Society: Human Perspectives on Environmental Issues; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  13. Pyle, R.M. Nature matrix: Reconnecting people and nature. Oryx 2012, 37, 206–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Jürgens, U.M.; Hackett, P.M.W.; Hunziker, M.; Patt, A. Wolves, crows, spiders, and people: A qualitative study yielding a three-layer framework for understanding human-wildlife relations. Diversity 2022, 14, 591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Locquet, A.; Simon, L. For a different kind of wildlife management: Actions in favour of the wilderness as a space for experience and a means of diffusing practices in Europe. Diversity 2022, 14, 819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Beery, T.; Stahl Olafsson, A.; Gentin, S.; Maurer, M.; Stålhammar, S.; Albert, C.; Bieling, C.; Buijs, A.; Fagerholm, N.; Garcia-Martin, M.; et al. Disconnection from nature: Expanding our understanding of human-nature relations. People Nat. 2023, 5, 470–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ives, C.D.; Abson, D.J.; von Wehrden, H.; Dorninger, C.; Klaniecki, K.; Fischer, J. Reconnecting with nature for sustainability. Sustain. Sci. 2018, 13, 1389–1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fiedler, P.L.; Jain, S.K. Conservation Biology: The Theory and Practice of Nature Conservation, Preservation and Management; Chapman & Hall: New York, NY, USA; London, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  19. Lewis, C.A.; Lester, N.P.; Bradshaw, A.D.; Fitzgibbon, J.E.; Fuller, K.; Hakanson, L.; Richards, C. Considerations of scale in habitat conservation and restoration. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1996, 53, 440–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cruz-Bazan, E.J.; Ramírez-Albores, J.E.; Encina-Domínguez, J.A.; Hernández-Herrera, J.A.; Chave-Lugo, E.B. Spatial-temporal patterns of mammal diversity and abundance in three vegetation types in a semi-arid landscape in southern Coahuila, Mexico. Diversity 2025, 17, 788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jurado-Guerra, P.; Velázquez-Martínez, M.; Sánchez-Gutiérrez, R.A.; Álvarez-Holguín, A.; Domínguez-Martínez, P.A.; Gutiérrez-Luna, R.; Garza-Cedillo, R.D.; Luna-Luna, M.; Chávez-Ruiz, M.G. The grasslands and scrublands of arid and semi-arid zones of Mexico: Current status, challenges and perspectives. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Pecu. 2021, 12, 261–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Mayor, S.J.; Schneider, D.C.; Schaefer, J.A.; Mahoney, S.P. Habitat selection at multiple scales. Ecoscience 2009, 16, 238–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Grover, J.P. Resource Competition; Springer Science and Business Media: London, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  24. White, T.C. The importance of a relative shortage of food in animal ecology. Oecologia 1978, 33, 71–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kajita, R.; Kajimura, H. Wood mice utilize understory vegetation of leafless dead dwarf bamboo culms as a habitat and foraging site. Diversity 2024, 16, 458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Twynham, K.; Ordiz, A.; Støen, O.G.; Rauset, G.R.; Kindberg, J.; Segerström, P.; Frank, J.; Uzal, A. Habitat selection by brown bears with varying levels of predation rates on ungulate neonates. Diversity 2021, 13, 678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bernotienė, R.; Treinys, R.; Bukauskaitė, D. Vertical distribution of Culicoides biting midges in temperate forests. Diversity 2024, 16, 585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Doherty, T.S.; Hays, G.C.; Driscoll, D.A. Human disturbance causes widespread disruption of animal movement. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 5, 513–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Fahrig, L. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2003, 34, 487–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bišćan, M.; Jelić, D.; Maguire, I.; Massolo, A. Modeling wolf, Canis lupus, recolonization dynamics to plan conservation actions ahead: Will the “big bad wolves” howl again in Slavonia, Croatia? Diversity 2025, 17, 461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Peters, R.L. Effects of global warming on forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 1990, 35, 13–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mullet, T.C.; Farina, A. Ecoacoustic baseline of a successional subarctic ecosystem post-glaciation amidst climate change in south-central Alaska. Diversity 2025, 17, 443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Schneider, L.; Rebetez, M.; Rasmann, S. The effect od climate change on invasive crop pests across biomes. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2022, 50, 100895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Traill, L.W.; Lim, M.L.M.; Sodhi, M.S.; Bradshaw, C.J.A. Mechanisms driving change: Altered species interactions and ecosystem function through global warming. J. Anim. Ecol. 2010, 79, 937–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Toppin, N.E.; Valenzuela, N. Are painted turtles (Chrysemys picta) resilient to the potential impact of climate change on vitamin D via overgrown floating vegetation? Diversity 2025, 17, 414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zamora-Camacho, F.J. Do active and passive antipredator defences in the toad Epidalea calamita differ between males and females from natural habitats and agrosystems? Diversity 2021, 13, 614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Boivin, N.L.; Zeder, M.A.; Fuller, D.Q.; Crowther, A.; Larson, G.; Erlandson, J.M.; Denham, T.; Petraglia, M.D. Ecological consequences of human niche construction: Examining long-term anthropogenic shaping of global species distributions. Proc. Nat. Ac. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 6388–6396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Fischer, J.; Lindenmayer, D.B. Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: A synthesis. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2007, 16, 265–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Miller, J.R.; Hobbs, R.J. Habitat restoration–Do we know what we’re doing? Restor. Ecol. 2007, 15, 382–390. [Google Scholar]
  40. Martínez-Abraín, A.; Jiménez, J. Anthropogenic areas as incidental substitutes for original habitat. Conserv. Biol. 2016, 30, 593–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pratt, J.R. Artificial habitats and ecosystem restoration: Managing for the future. Bull. Mar. Sci. 1994, 55, 268–275. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
DNA Barcoding for Managing Blackberry Genetic Resources on Black Sea Coast (Russia)
Previous
A Multidimensional Framework for Understanding Microbial Mutualisms
Next