The Intersection of Human Disturbance and Diel Activity, with Potential Consequences on Trophic Interactions

Autoři: Michael A. Patten aff001;  Jutta C. Burger aff003;  Milan Mitrovich aff004
Působiště autorů: Oklahoma Biological Survey, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, United States of America aff001;  Department of Biology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, United States of America aff002;  Irvine Ranch Conservancy, Irvine, California, United States of America aff003;  Natural Communities Coalition, Irvine, California, United States of America aff004
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226418


Direct effects of human disturbance on animal populations are well documented across habitats, biomes, and species, but indirect effects of diel have received less attention. An emerging field in applied ecology involves behavioral avoidance of or attraction to humans and their trappings. We posit trophic consequences, in terms of relative risk, for four species of mammals, each of which strongly avoids human activity, in urban reserves of coastal southern California. Two species, one predator and one prey, avoid human activity via a temporal shift to become “more nocturnal”—the species’ activity is centered near dawn on days without human activity but nearer to midnight on days with human activity. Diel shifts have brought the species into greater overlap, respectively, with a key prey and a key predator, overlap that may increase encounter rate and thus increase relative risk of predation, with potential consequences for trophic dynamics and cascades: increased risk of predation may depress prey population, either directly (e.g., mortality) or indirectly (e.g., “landscape of fear”). Human use of reserves, especially in high population density regions, needs to be reconsidered either to reduce access or to restrict access entirely to areas that may provide refuge to both predators and prey.

Klíčová slova:

Deer – Mammals – Mules – Predation – Predator-prey dynamics – Pumas – Wildlife – Coyotes


1. Sih A, Christensen B. Optimal diet theory: when does it work, and when and why does it fail? Anim Behav. 2001; 61:379–390.

2. Lima SL. Stress and decision-making under the risk of predation: recent developments from behavioral, reproductive, and ecological perspectives. Adv Stud Behav. 1998; 27:215–290.

3. Mittelbach GG Community ecology. 2012. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.

4. Boarman WI, Patten MA, Camp RJ, Collis SJ. Ecology of a population of subsidized predators: Common Ravens in the central Mojave Desert, California. J Arid Environ. 2006; 67:248–261.

5. Whittaker D, Knight RL. Understanding wildlife responses to humans. Wildl Soc Bull. 1998; 26:312–317.

6. Stankowich T. Ungulate flight response to human disturbance: a review and meta-analysis. Biol Conserv. 2008; 141:2159–2173.

7. Pruett CL, Patten MA, Wolfe DH. Avoidance behavior by prairie grouse: implications for wind energy development. Conserv Biol. 2009; 23:1253–1259. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01254.x 19500121

8. Patten MA, Kelly JF. Habitat selection and the perceptual trap. Ecol Appl. 2010; 20:2148–2156. doi: 10.1890/09-2370.1 21265448

9. Poessel SA, Burdett CL, Boydston EE, Lyren LM, Alonso RS, Fisher RN, et al. Roads influence movement and home range of a fragmentation-sensitive carnivore, the Bobcat, in an urban landscape. Biol Conserv. 2014; 180:224–232.

10. Frid A, Dill LM. Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. Conserv Ecol. 2002; 6(1):11.

11. Beale CM, Monaghan P. Human disturbance: people as predation-free predators? J Appl Ecol. 2004; 41:335–343.

12. Miller SG, Knight RL, Miller CK. Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs. Wildl Soc Bull. 2001; 29:124–132.

13. Taylor AR, Knight RL. Wildlife response to recreation and associated visitor perceptions. Ecol Appl. 2008; 13:951–963.

14. Riley SJ, Sauvajot RM, Fuller TK, York EC, Kamradt DA, Bromley C, et al. Effects of urbanization and habitat fragmentation on Bobcats and Coyotes in southern California. Conserv Biol. 2003; 17:566–576.

15. George SL, Crooks KR. Recreation and large mammal activity in an urban nature reserve. Biol Conserv. 2006; 133:107–117.

16. Ordeñana MA, Crooks KR, Boydston EE, Fisher RN, Lyren LM, Siudyla S, et al. Effects of urbanization on carnivore species distribution and richness. J Mammal. 2010; 91:1322–1331.

17. Patten MA, Burger JC. Reserves as double-edged sword: avoidance behavior in an urban-adjacent wildland. Biol Conserv. 2018; 218:233–239.

18. Tigas LA, Van Vuren DH, Sauvajot RM. Behavioral responses of Bobcats and Coyotes to habitat fragmentation and corridors in an urban environment. Biol Conserv. 2002; 108:299–306.

19. Naugle DE, Jenks JA, Kernohan BJ, Johnson RR. Effects of hunting and loss of escape cover on movements and activity of female White-tailed Deer, Odocoileus virginianus. Can Field-Nat. 1997; 111:595–600.

20. McClennen N, Wigglesworth RR, Anderson SH, Wachob DG. The effect of suburban and agricultural development on the activity patterns of Coyotes (Canis latrans). Am Midl Nat. 2001; 146:27–36.

21. Rogala JK, Hebblewhite M, Whittington J, White CA, Coleshill J, Musiani M. Human activity differentially redistributes large mammals in the Canadian Rockies national parks. Ecol Soc. 2011; 16(3):16.

22. Gaynor KM, Hojnowski CE, Carter NH, Brashares JS. The influence of human disturbance on wildlife nocturnality. Science. 2018; 360:1232–1235. doi: 10.1126/science.aar7121 29903973

23. Carter NH, Shrestha BK, Karki JB, Pradhan NMB, Liu J. Coexistence between wildlife and humans at fine spatial scales. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012; 109:15360–15365. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1210490109 22949642

24. Poudel BS, Spooner PG, Matthews A. Temporal shift in activity patterns of Himalayan marmots in relation to pastoralism. Behav Ecol. 2015; 26:1345–1351.

25. Reilly ML, Tobler MW, Sonderegger DL, Beier P. Spatial and temporal response of wildlife to recreational activities in the San Francisco Bay ecoregion. Biol Conserv. 2017; 207:117–126.

26. Muhly TB, Semeniuk C, Massolo A, Hickman L, Musiani M. Human activity helps prey win the predator–prey space race. PLoS one. 2011; 6(3):e17050. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017050 21399682

27. Monterroso P, Célio Alves P, Ferreras P. Plasticity in circadian activity patterns of mesocarnivores in Southwestern Europe: implications for species coexistence. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2014; 68:1403–1417.

28. Ciuti S, Northrup JM, Muhly TB, Simi S, Musiani M, Pitt JA, et al. Effects of humans on behaviour of wildlife exceed those of natural predators in a landscape of fear. PLoS one. 2012; 7(11):e50611. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0050611 23226330

29. Magle SB, Simoni LS, Lehrer EW, Brown JS. Urban predator–prey association: Coyote and deer distributions in the Chicago metropolitan area. Urban Ecosyst. 2014; 17:875–891.

30. Kuijper DPJ, Bubnicki JW, Churski M, Mols B, van Hooft P. Context dependence of risk effects: wolves and tree logs create patches of fear in an old-growth forest. Behav Ecol. 2015; 26:1558–1568.

31. Dickson BG, Beier P. Home-range and habitat selection by adult cougars in southern California. J Wildl Manage. 2002; 66:1235–1245.

32. Fedriani JM, Fuller TK, Sauvajot RM, York CE. Competition and intraguild predation among three sympatric carnivores. Oecologia. 2000; 125:258–270. doi: 10.1007/s004420000448 24595837

33. Farias V, Fuller TK, Wayne RK, Sauvajot RM. Survival and cause-specific mortality of Gray Foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) in southern California. J Zool. 2005; 266:249–254.

34. Batschelet E. Circular statistics in biology. 1981. London, UK: Academic Press.

35. Morris JA, Gardner MJ. Calculating confidence intervals for relative risks (odds ratios) and standardised ratios and rates. Brit Med J. 1988; 296:1313–1316.

36. Tracey JA, Zhu J, Boydston E, Lyren L, Fisher RN, Crooks KR. Mapping behavioral landscapes for animal movement: a finite mixture modeling approach. Ecol Appl. 2013; 23:654–669. doi: 10.1890/12-0687.1 23734492

37. Goswami VR, Medhi K., Nichols JD, Oli MK. Mechanistic understanding of human–wildlife conflict through a novel application of dynamic occupancy models. Conserv Biol. 2015; 29:1100–1110. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12475 25757801

38. Dale BW, Adams LG, Bowyer RT. Functional response of wolves preying on barren-ground caribou in a multiple-prey ecosystem. J Anim Ecol. 1994; 63:644–652.

39. Suraci JP1, Clinchy M, Dill LM, Roberts D, Zanette LY. Fear of large carnivores causes a trophic cascade, Nat Comm. 2016; 7:10698.

40. Atkins JL, Long RA, Pansu J, Daskin JH, Potter AB, Stalmans ME, et al. Cascading impacts of large-carnivore extirpation in an African ecosystem. Science. 2019; 364:173–177. doi: 10.1126/science.aau3561 30846612

41. Koel TM, Tronstad LM, Arnold JL, Gunther KA, Smith DW, Syslo JM, et al. Predatory fish invasion induces within and across ecosystem effects in Yellowstone National Park. Sci Adv. 2019; 5:eaav1139. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aav1139 30906863

42. Suraci JP, Clinchy M, Zanette LY, Wilmers CC. Fear of humans as apex predators has landscape-scale impacts from mountain lions to mice. Ecol Lett. 2019; 22:1578–1586. doi: 10.1111/ele.13344 31313436

43. MacLeod KJ, Krebs CJ, Boonstra R, Sheriff MJ. Fear and lethality in snowshoe hares: the deadly effects of non-consumptive predation risk. Oikos. 2018; 127:375–380.

44. Smith JA, Thomas AC, Levi T, Wang Y, Wilmers CC. Human activity reduces niche partitioning among three widespread mesocarnivores. Oikos. 2018; 127:890–901.

45. Reed SE, Merenlender AM. Effects of management of domestic dogs and recreation on carnivores in protected areas in northern California. Conserv Biol. 2011; 25:504–513. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01641.x 21309853

46. Larson CL, Reed SE, Merenlender AM, Crooks KR. Effects of recreation on animals revealed as widespread through a global systematic review. PLoS one. 2016; 11(12):e0167259. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0167259 27930730

Článek vyšel v časopise


2019 Číslo 12