The continuous growth of the urban population, coupled with habitat loss, has resulted in unanticipated interactions between animals and humans in urban centers. In this study, we investigated the presence of mammals in urban centers through newspaper reports on websites. Specifically, we examined: i) the frequency of photographic records, ii) the temporal trends (2001 to 2021) and spatial trends (Brazilian Federative regions and states) of the records, and iii) the orders, families, and species most frequently reported in urban centers. On the Google platform (http://www.google.com.br), we used combinations of the keywords “mammals in urban centers,” “mammals found in the city”, and “mammals found in the municipality” to survey mammal records. We excluded repeated news items, sites that experienced technical problems during the search period, and those that did not cover the topic. We compiled a total of 733 websites. The records spanned from 2002 to 2021, with 73% occurring in the last four years. The Southeast, South, and Midwest regions stood out. The animals recorded belonged to 55 mammal species (16 vulnerable and 3 endangered), distributed in 22 families and 10 orders. The data indicate that the majority of mammal sightings in urban areas occur on streets, with some conflictual interactions. This is the first study that utilizes websites for diagnosing the mammal fauna present in urban centers in Brazil. The dataset generated here could aid in understanding the occurrence of mammal species in the urban environment.

Carnivora, data paper, Ocelot, photographic records, São Paulo state, southeastern region

Cities emerged thousands of years ago, and urban sprawl has led to a disruption in human-environment interaction (Seto et al. 2017; Perry et al. 2020). Continuous population growth and the demand for more resources alter and transform natural habitats, resulting in negative consequences for biodiversity (McDonald et al. 2013; Schenk and Souza 2014; Start et al. 2020); these consequences include the reduction of genetic diversity, threats from pathogens, the spread of exotic and invasive species, air, noise, and light pollution, as well as the alteration of natural hydrological regimes and fires (Theodorou 2022). Furthermore, population growth has been identified as one of the main causes of species and population extinction at a global level (Ceballos and Ehrlich 2002; Ceballos et al. 2010, 2015).

Ever since humans began living in settlements, wildlife has visited these places and found resources, such as shelters, food scraps, and garbage for food (Ceballos and Ehrlich 2002). As a result, there is an increase in the frequency of contact and complexity of the human-fauna relationship (Aronson et al. 2014). Species that were previously not observed in urban areas have been reported, even in cities with high population densities (Prezoto and Vale 2019). However, when wild species pose a threat to people and their livelihoods, this relationship can become conflictual (Zimmermann et al. 2010). In Brazil, conflicts between animals and humans have increased due to the migration of fauna from natural and rural areas to suburban and urban areas (Marchini and Crawshaw 2015).

Encounters and interactions between humans and animals have consequences for both. People are susceptible to zoonoses and economic damage, while animals face risks such as vehicle collision, entanglement, and attacks by domestic animals (Taylor-Brown et al. 2019). The frequency of recording wild animals in urban centers can be associated with local physical factors or the urban landscape, such as the presence of green areas, parks, waterways, and the often-practiced urban tree planting (Bateman and Fleming 2012; Van Bommel et al. 2020). Identifying these factors is important for formulating public policies and mitigating conflicts (Basak et al. 2020).

In this study, we investigated the presence of mammals in urban centers through newspaper reports and other communication networks on websites. Specifically, we examined: i) the frequency of photographic records, ii) the temporal trends (2001 to 2021), and spatial trends (Brazilian Federative regions and states) of records, and iii) the orders, families, and species most frequently reported in urban centers.

This dataset comprises 733 records of 450 mammal locations found in urban centers across Brazil, as reported on various websites. Of the total number of records, 89% (N = 652) included an image or video, spanning the period between 2002 and 2021, with a noticeable increase in the number of records in the last five years (Fig. 1). The Southeast (41%, N = 302), South (25%, N = 182), and Midwest (18%, N = 129) regions had the highest number of records, particularly in the cities of São Paulo, Minas Gerais, Mato Grosso do Sul, Rio Grande do Sul, Rio de Janeiro, Santa Catarina and Paraná (Figs 1, 2).

Figure 1. 

Number of photographic (A), temporal (B) and spatial (C) records of mammalian species in urban areas of Brazil.

Figure 2. 

Geographic distribution of mammal occurrence records in Brazilian urban areas, categorized by federative regions.

Our data demonstrate a geographic bias in media reports on human-mammal encounters in urban areas (Figs 1, 2). The regions showing the highest number of records are economically more developed compared to other areas of the country (Saraiva, Souza, 2012). Consequently, these regions have greater media coverage. One recommendation to reduce this bias is to foster stronger communication between scientists and the media, along with more studies to investigate public perception of wildlife and interpretation of media events. Additionally, increased investment in communication, education, and public awareness programs could help rebalance both media and public perception (Bornatowski et al. 2019).

Of the total 733 records, we found 55 species, 22 families and 10 orders of mammals in urban areas of Brazil (Table 2). Carnivora (N = 399 records, 19 species) was the more representative order, followed by Rodentia (93, 11 spp.), Pilosa (92, 4 spp.), Cetartiodactyla (52, 4 spp.), Didelphimorphia (35, 4 spp.), Primates (29, 5 spp.), Cingulata (17, 6 spp.), Perissodactyla (13, 1 sp.), Lagomorpha (2, 1 sp.) and Chiroptera (1, 1 sp.). Felidae and Canidae comprised 48% of records (N = 353); Felidae occur in 96% of localities (Fig. 3).

Figure 3. 

Number of records by orders (pie plot) and families (bar plot) of mammals in urban areas of Brazil.

The Ocelot, Puma, Southern Tamandua, Maned Wolf, Crab-eating Fox, Gray Brocket, and Capybara reach more than 30 records and represented 49% of mammalian fauna in urban areas from Brazil (Fig. 4). Of the total species recorded in urban areas, 32.7% are threatened according Brazilian Red List (MMA 2022), highlighted by the orders: Carnivora (Maned Wolf Chrysocyon brachyurus, Hoary Fox Lycalopex vetulus, Bush Dog Speothos venaticus, Margay Leopardus wiedii, Southern Tiger Cat L. guttulus, Jaguar Panthera onca, Jaguarundi Herpailurus yagouaroundi and Giant Otter Pteronura brasiliensis), Cingulata (Giant Armadillo Priodontes maximus and Brazilian Three-banded Armadillo Tolypeutes tricinctus), Pilosa (Giant Anteater Myrmecophaga tridactyla and Maned Three-toed Sloth Bradypus torquatus), Primates (Brown Howler Monkey Alouatta guariba and Buffy-tufted-ear Marmoset Callithrix aurita), Perissodactyla (Lowland Tapir Tapirus terrestris) and Cetartiodactyla (White-lipped Peccary Tayassu pecari) (Fig. 4)

Figure 4. 

Number of records by species of mammals in urban areas of Brazil.

The species accumulation curve (Fig. 5) provides validation for using this dataset to make inferences about mammal diversity in urban areas within the sampled context. The curve shows a gradual plateau, indicating that a sufficient sampling effort (in terms of the number of cities) has been reached to capture the diversity most frequently reported in the media. However, we acknowledge that the data carry an inherent media bias, favoring reports of mammals that capture public attention—typically emblematic, charismatic, and vulnerable species more likely to be impacted by human activities. This is because, for an event to become newsworthy, it must hold relevance from the media’s perspective, drawing public attention (Freitas and Barszcz 2015; Shaw et al. 2022).

Figure 5. 

Collector’s curve showing species accumulation with increasing sampling effort across urban areas.

Thus, the media focus on these specific species is a reflection of journalistic trends rather than a methodological flaw in the study. Although this bias may prevent uniform records across all species, the accumulation curve suggests that the data collected still provide a legitimate basis for understanding broader trends. It serves as a valuable repository of information on the increasing frequency of human-wildlife interactions in urban areas, opening pathways for further discussions on how media coverage influences public perception of urban wildlife. While this dataset may not fully reflect the actual diversity or abundance of species in urban areas, it highlights patterns in human-wildlife relationships shaped by media representation, offering an opportunity for future analyses of these dynamics.

Based on reports gathered through the media, the locations with the highest number of mammal sightings in urban centers are streets (280 records), followed by residential properties (191), highways (116), parks (41), businesses (33), gated communities (19), vacant lots (9), schools (5), hospitals (5), airports (2), churches (2), rivers (2), hotels (1), banks (1), nursing homes (1), universities (1), and gardens (1). Other reports did not specify where the animals were sighted or found. After being located, 292 records indicate that the mammals were sent for rehabilitation, with 188 of these animals found injured and 99 fatalities recorded.

Regarding interactions, not all reports included information on conflicts or relationships beyond encounters between humans and wildlife. The recorded interactions include road accidents (108), conflicts with dogs (16), predation of domestic animals (10), retaliation (4), electric shocks (3), intentional feeding (3), poisoning (2), nuisance wildlife (2), mutilation (1), and crop damage (1). Interactions between humans and wild animals, particularly mammals, are diverse and complex, often resulting in conflicts. Both habitat loss due to urbanization and agricultural expansion, along with the presence of urban parks, contribute to these conflicts (Griffin et al. 2022; Adhikari et al. 2024). The majority of records (679) are from urban areas, as the database focuses on mammals in urban centers.

Compiling information on all mammal species found in urban centers into a single document is particularly challenging for several reasons: i) sites with incomplete information, ii) incorrectly identified animals, iii) sites with technical problems, and iv) poor-quality photos and videos.

Even so, our dataset reflects the number of mammal records in urban centers in Brazil. This is the first study to utilize websites to diagnose the mammal fauna present in urban centers in Brazil. The dataset generated here could help us understand the occurrence of mammal species in urban environments and serve as a foundation for future studies related to urban landscape ecology and its implications for the distribution and conservation of mammals in these environments.