Mammalian predator and prey responses to recreation and land use across multiple scales provide limited support for the human shield hypothesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Outdoor recreation is widespread, with uncertain effects on wildlife. The human shield hypothesis (HSH) suggests that recreation could have differential effects on predators and prey, with predator avoidance of humans creating a spatial refuge ‘shielding’ prey from people. The generality of the HSH remains to be tested across larger scales, wherein human shielding may prove generalizable, or diminish with variability in ecological contexts. We combined data from 446 camera traps and 79,279 sampling days across 10 landscapes spanning 15,840 km2 in western Canada. We used hierarchical models to quantify the influence of recreation and landscape disturbance (roads, logging) on ungulate prey (moose, mule deer and elk) and carnivore (wolf, grizzly bear, cougar and black bear) site use. We found limited support for the HSH and strong responses to recreation at local but not larger spatial scales. Only mule deer showed positive but weak landscape‐level responses to recreation. Elk were positively associated with local recreation while moose and mule deer responses were negative, contrary to HSH predictions. Mule deer showed a more complex interaction between recreation and land‐use disturbance, with more negative responses to recreation at lower road density or higher logged areas. Contrary to HSH predictions, carnivores did not avoid recreation and grizzly bear site use was positively associated. We also tested the effects of roads and logging on temporal activity overlap between mule deer and recreation, expecting deer to minimize interaction with humans by partitioning time in areas subject to more habitat disturbance. However, temporal overlap between people and deer increased with road density. Our findings highlight the complex ecological patterns that emerge at macroecological scales. There is a need for expanded monitoring of human and wildlife use of recreation areas, particularly multi‐scale and ‐species approaches to studying the interacting effects of recreation and land‐use change on wildlife.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".