Human visitation limits the utility of protected areas as ecological baselines

Sarmento, Wesley M.; Berger, Joël

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2017.06.032

Cited by 49 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Intense human pressure is prevalent in almost a third of global protected lands and undermines biodiversity preservation (Jones et al 2018). Furthermore, interference risks altering baselines, not only negating the function of reserves in detecting ecological change, but also distorting public understanding of intact ecological processes (Sarmento and Berger 2017). Increasing intensity, temporal or spatial coverage of human activities beyond species tolerance could also conflict with conservation goals (Firšt et al 2005;Štrbenac et al 2005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fear of the dark? A mesopredator mitigates large carnivore risk through nocturnality, but humans moderate the interaction

Haswell

Kusak

Jones

et al. 2020

Behav Ecol Sociobiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While constrained by endogenous rhythms, morphology and ecology, animals may still exhibit flexible activity patterns in response to risk. Temporal avoidance of interspecific aggression can enable access to resources without spatial exclusion. Apex predators, including humans, can affect mesopredator activity patterns. Human context might also modify temporal interactions between predators. We explored activity patterns, nocturnality and the effects of human activity upon a guild of carnivores (grey wolf, Canis lupus; Eurasian lynx, Lynx lynx; red fox, Vulpes vulpes) using travel routes in Plitvice Lakes National Park, Croatia. Humans were diurnal, foxes nocturnal and large carnivores active during the night, immediately after sunrise and before sunset. Carnivore activity patterns overlapped greatly and to a similar extent for all pairings. Activity curves followed expectations based on interspecific killing, with activity peaks coinciding where body size differences were small (wolf and lynx) but not when they were intermediate (foxes to large carnivores). Carnivore activity, particularly fox, overlapped much less with that of diurnal humans. Foxes responded to higher large carnivore activity by being more nocturnal. Low light levels likely provide safer conditions by reducing the visual detectability of mesopredators. The nocturnal effect of large carnivores was however moderated and reduced by human activity. This could perhaps be due to temporal shielding or interference with risk cues. Subtle temporal avoidance and nocturnality may enable mesopredators to cope with interspecific aggression at shared spatial resources. Higher human activity moderated the effects of top-down temporal suppression which could consequently affect the trophic interactions of mesopredators. Significance statement Temporal partitioning can provide an important mechanism for spatial resource access and species coexistence. Our findings show that carnivores partition the use of shared travel routes in time, using the cover of darkness to travel safely where their suppressors (large carnivores) are more active. We however observed fox nocturnality to be flexible, with responses depending on the activity levels but also the composition of apex predators. High human activity modified the top-down temporal suppression of mesopredators by large carnivores. The use of time by predators can have demographic and trophic consequences. Prey accessibility and susceptibility can be temporally variable. As such, the ecosystem services and the ecological roles of predators may be affected by human time use as well as that of intraguild competitors. Temporal interactions should not be overlooked when evaluating human use and conservation priorities in protected areas.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fear of the dark? A mesopredator mitigates large carnivore risk through nocturnality, but humans moderate the interaction

Haswell

Kusak

Jones

et al. 2020

Behav Ecol Sociobiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(c) Over time, decreased predator encounter rates, whereas with human observers, could lead to decreased wariness and less time spent looking for predators. (d) Time spent in riskier habitats while under observation may also increase if subjects perceive themselves to be safer while in proximity to an observer observers or even human infrastructure, it is known as the "humanshield effect" (Berger, 2007;Sarmento & Berger, 2017). Evidence suggests that at least some primates do perceive an increase in safety while under observation (Nowak, le Roux, Richards, Scheijen, & Hill, 2014).…”

Section: Research On Behavioral Indicators Of Risk Perception In Primmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Researchers originally thought that this phenomenon was limited to humans deterring unhabituated predators rather than introducing behavioral changes in primate prey (Crofoot, Lambert, Kays, & Wikelski, 2010). However, evidence for a "human-shield" has been found in a variety T A B L E 1 Methods of monitoring antipredator behaviors and primate-predator interactions used in reviewed studies for investigating the human-induced rapid environmental change (HIREC) or species conservation Topic/concern Method of investigation Citation (2008) of taxa (Atickem, Loe, & Stenseth, 2014;Berger, 2007;Muhly, Semeniuk, Massolo, Hickman, & Musiani, 2011;Nowak et al, 2014;Sarmento & Berger, 2017). How long this phenomenon persists likely depends on the types and tolerance of predator species present (Smith, Thomas, Levi, Wang, & Wilmers, 2018) and whether those individual predators tend to have negative or relatively neutral interactions with humans ( Figure 2; Isbell & Young, 1993).…”

Section: Direct Observation Of Habituated Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet, a direct observation also potentially biases antipredator studies because many carnivores actively avoid proximity to humans (Boesch, ; Isbell & Young, ; Smith et al, ; van Cleave et al, ). When comparatively tolerant prey species can perceive and exploit this increase in safety near observers or even human infrastructure, it is known as the “human‐shield effect” (Berger, ; Sarmento & Berger, ). Evidence suggests that at least some primates do perceive an increase in safety while under observation (Nowak, le Roux, Richards, Scheijen, & Hill, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Anthropogenic influences on primate antipredator behavior and implications for research and conservation

LaBarge

Hill

Berman

et al. 2020

American J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predation risk affects prey species' behavior, even in the absence of a direct threat, but human‐induced environmental change may disturb ecologically significant predator–prey interactions. Here, we propose various ways in which knowledge of antipredator tactics, behavioral risk effects, and primate–predator interactions could assist in identifying human‐caused disruption to natural systems. Using behavior to evaluate primate responses to the ongoing environmental change should be a potentially effective way to make species conservation more predictive by identifying issues before a more dramatic population declines. A key challenge here is that studies of predation on primates often use data collected via direct observations of habituated animals and human presence can deter carnivores and influence subjects' perception of risk. Hence, we also review various indirect data collection methods to evaluate their effectiveness in identifying where environmental change threatens wild species, while also minimizing observer bias.

show abstract

“…In areas with higher predation risk, goats trade off forage for safety by staying closer to cliffs (Hamel & Côté, 2007). Escape terrain may be important beyond direct interactions with predators since goats select for areas closer to cliffs during vulnerable activities such as sleeping (Sarmento & Berger, 2017). Furthermore, ledges surrounded by vertical cliffs are important sites where females give birth and rear young during the first days to reduce predation risk (Chadwick, 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conservation implications of using an imitation carnivore to assess rarely used refuges as critical habitat features in an alpine ungulate

Sarmento

Berger

2020

PeerJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding relationships between animals and their habitat is a central goal in ecology with important implications for conservation. Misidentified habitat requirements can have serious repercussions because land protection or reintroductions might occur in less than optimal habitat. Studies of resource selection have greatly facilitated an understanding of ecological relationships but can be improved when vital yet infrequently utilized habitat features are more fully described. A critical element for many prey species is escape terrain or some other form of refuge to avoid predation. Mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) are well known for their use of cliffs to avoid predation, but a survey of the literature revealed at least twelve different approximations of goat escape terrain, ranging from > 25° to > 50° slopes. Here, we seek to (1) enhance estimates of mountain goat escape terrain and antipredator behavior, and (2) highlight the limitations of the assumption that the time an animal spends in an area is proportional to importance. To improve estimates of goat escape terrain, we conducted field work across two years (2014–15) in Glacier National Park, Montana USA and manipulated apparent predation risk by exposing mountain goats to a threatening simulated grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) treatment and a non-threatening ungulate (control) treatment. Mountain goats moved in response to the simulated bear but not in response to the simulated ungulate, with shorter latencies to move for subjects in larger groups and at shorter distances to the simulated threat. Through a used-unused resource selection function we tested 22 landscape variables to describe the use of escape terrain. Proximity to slopes greater than 60° best explained the locations to which mountain goats fled after exposure to the simulated bear, and the average slope of these escape locations was 56.5° (±14.1 S.D.). Our results suggest that mountain goat escape terrain be considered at slopes of 60° as a minimum because our simulated threat did not include pursuit of goats and, thus, slopes of 60° are likely underestimates of actual escape terrain. Additionally, because direct interactions between carnivores and goats seldom occur, serious escape terrain is infrequently used. Past estimates of escape may have miscalculated the slopes which goats select for in response to predation risk. Based on experimental approaches in the wild, we suggest that anti-predator behavior should be included in studies of resource selection when the goal is to consider habitat as a predictor for conservation success. Finally, we discuss evidence suggesting a past mountain goat introduction failed due to lack of adequate escape terrain and subsequent recolonization of a predator.

show abstract

Human visitation limits the utility of protected areas as ecological baselines

Cited by 49 publications

References 47 publications

Fear of the dark? A mesopredator mitigates large carnivore risk through nocturnality, but humans moderate the interaction

Fear of the dark? A mesopredator mitigates large carnivore risk through nocturnality, but humans moderate the interaction

Anthropogenic influences on primate antipredator behavior and implications for research and conservation

Conservation implications of using an imitation carnivore to assess rarely used refuges as critical habitat features in an alpine ungulate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About