Defensive responses of gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus) are influenced by risk assessment and level of habituation to humans

Bateman, Philip W.; Fleming, Patricia A.; Jones, Blake Carlton; Rothermel, Betsie B.

doi:10.1163/1568539x-00003184

Cited by 7 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…hunting, capture, and handling), or presence of predator‐like animals (e.g. dogs), will also influence animal risk assessment (Gabrielsen & Smith, ; Martinetto & Cugnasse, ; González et al , ; Bates et al , ; Bateman et al , ). Some research has also shown that animals may be more reactive to the visual presence of humans than to anthropogenic noise (Gabrielsen & Smith, ).…”

Section: Level 2: Physiological and Behavioural Responses To Human Prmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Prior interactions with human activities or natural predation might increase stress responses in further encounters (i.e. sensitization of individuals exposed to hunting, noxious anthropogenic stimuli or high natural predation pressure) (Bejder et al , ; Bateman et al , ). However, human‐induced stress response can be low when animals are naïve to predation risk due to the lack of natural predators or when individuals have been habituated to harmless anthropogenic stimuli (Ydenberg & Dill, ; Helfman, ; Bejder et al , ).…”

Section: Level 2: Physiological and Behavioural Responses To Human Prmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…References: 1, Geist et al (); 2, Jones et al (); 3, Kiltie (); 4, Blumstein et al (); 5, Amo et al (); 6, Gordon et al (); 7, Elbaz et al (); 8, Cuthill et al (); 9, Gomez & Thery (); 10, Gutzwiller & Marcum (); 11, Fernandez‐Juricic & Schroeder (); 12, Blumstein (); 13, Beauchamp (); 14, Fernandez‐Juricic et al (); 15, Whittingham et al (); 16, Lazarus & Symonds (); 17, Margalida et al (); 18, Karp & Root (); 19, Utne‐Palm (); 20, Kelley & Magurran (); 21, Knight & Knight (); 22, Martin (); 23, Hilton et al (); 24, Carere et al (); 25, Bates et al (); 26, Fedosenko & Blank (); 27, Dupuch, Magnan & Dill (); 28, Roth et al (); 29, Schaik et al (); 30, Carlson (); 31, Moreno (); 32, Ewert et al (); 33, Siegel (); 34. Miller et al (); 35, Burger & Gochfeld (); 36, Espmark & Langvatn (); 37, Stankowich & Blumstein (); 38, Steen et al (); 39, Llewelyn et al (); 40, Romero & Remage‐Healey (); 41, Sarabdjitsingh et al (); 42, Tillmann (); 43, Bejder et al (); 44, Müllner et al (); 45, Ikuta & Blumstein (); 46, Rödl et al (); 47, Bateman et al (); 48, Ydenberg & Dill (); 49, Helfman (); 50, Stankowich (); 51, Riou et al (); 52, Romero (); 53, Burger & Gochfeld (); 54, Waynert et al (); 55, Lendvai et al , ; 56, Camp et al (); 57, Dill & Houtman (); 58, Tadesse & Kotler (); 59, Cooper (…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Determinants of uncertainty in wildlife responses to human disturbance

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Outdoor recreation is increasing in intensity and space. Areas previously inaccessible are now being visited by ever-growing numbers of people, which increases human-wildlife encounters across habitats. This has raised concern among researchers and conservationists as, even in non-aggressive encounters, animals often perceive humans as predators and mount physiological and behavioural responses that can have negative consequences. However, despite all the research in recent decades, not many general patterns have emerged, especially at the level of populations, and many studies have yielded seemingly contradictory or inconclusive results. We argue that this is partly due to incomplete knowledge of the number and complexity of factors that may modulate the responses of animals. Thus, we aim to provide a conceptual approach intended to highlight the reasons that make it difficult to detect general patterns. We present a comprehensive compilation of factors modulating animal responses to humans at increasing levels (from sensory detection and immediate behavioural and physiological reactions, to changes in fitness and population trends), which may help understanding the uncertainty in the patterns. We observed that there are many modulating factors, which can be categorized as reflecting characteristics of the recreational activity itself (e.g. intensity of human presence), of the animals concerned (e.g. age or antipredatory strategy), and of the spatio-temporal context (e.g. habitat or timing of the encounter). Some factors appear to have non-linear and complex effects, which, if not considered, may lead to erroneous conclusions. Finally, we conclude that the difficulty in finding general patterns will be amplified at higher levels (i.e. at the level of populations), since as we proceed from one level to the next, the number of potential modulating factors accumulates, adding noise and obscuring direct associations between recreation and wildlife. More comprehensive knowledge about which (and how) factors affect animal responses across levels will certainly improve future research design and interpretation, and thus, our understanding of human recreational impacts on wildlife.

show abstract

Section: Level 2: Physiological and Behavioural Responses To Human Prmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Level 2: Physiological and Behavioural Responses To Human Prmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Determinants of uncertainty in wildlife responses to human disturbance

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Turtles that stopped moving remained in place with their neck extended while the observer was in sight, a behavior also reported for box turtles (Terrapene ornata (Agassiz, 1857); Legler 1960). Thus, we walked at least 10 m away to a location that reduced our visibility to the turtle, and that was not between or on the other side of a turtle and water, to observe its reaction (for similar methods, see Bateman et al 2014). After the female finished nesting or fled, we recorded the response to the observer (i.e., continue nesting vs. flee).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nesting stage and distance to refuge influence terrestrial nesting behavior of Painted Turtles (Chrysemys picta)

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theory predicts prey should flee to safety when the fitness benefits of flight meet or exceed the costs. Empirical work has shown the importance of predation risk (e.g., predator behavior, distance to refuge) to prey flight behavior. However, less is known about the influence of flight costs. We monitored nesting Painted Turtles (Chrysemys picta (Schneider, 1783)) to examine their response to a human observer (potential predator) depending on the distance between a turtle and an observer, distance between a turtle and water (i.e., refuge), and nesting stage at the time of the encounter (i.e., searching for a nest site vs. constructing a nest). We found no evidence that the distance to an observer influenced flight decisions. However, turtles were less likely to flee as the distance to water increased, and turtles already constructing nests were more likely to continue nesting than those still searching for nest sites. Turtles that traveled farther from water and that were constructing nests may have continued nesting because they had invested considerable energy and were close to completing oviposition. Thus, the fitness benefits of being closer to successful oviposition may outweigh the costs of increased vulnerability to predators during this important and vulnerable period of reproduction.

show abstract

“…FID has been used extensively to test the economic risk-sensitivity hypothesis (Cooper & Frederick, 2007;Ydenberg & Dill, 1986), which predicts that an organism will flee from an approaching predator when the costs of staying outweigh the costs of fleeing. Various factors can influence perception of predation risk, including previous experience with predators (Bateman, Fleming, Jones, & Rothermel, 2014;Cooper & Frederick, 2007;Stankowich, 2009). Based on the observations that threat-conditioned rats freeze for a longer duration compared to controls when presented with a conditioned stimulus, we predicted that, when slowly approached by a novel predator, birds previously chased by the predator would flee sooner (i.e.…”

Section: Threat Conditioningmentioning

confidence: 99%