COVID-19 suppression of human mobility releases mountain lions from a landscape of fear

Wilmers, Christopher C.; Nisi, Anna C.; Ranc, Nathan

doi:10.1016/j.cub.2021.06.050

Cited by 30 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recent lockdowns associated with the COVID‐19 pandemic, which some have termed the “anthropause” (Rutz et al, 2020 ), provided an unprecedented “experimental” exclusion of human activity which could help inform how wildlife are impacted by human activity (Bates et al, 2020 ). Worldwide, biologists hypothesized how the natural world might respond to the anthropause (Corlett et al, 2020 ; Gaynor et al, 2020 ; Rutz et al, 2020 ), with some of the first emerging studies showing increased sightings of elusive species (Silva‐Rodríguez et al, 2020 ) and species reclaiming spaces that had previously been monopolized by humans (Derryberry et al, 2020 ; Manenti et al, 2020 ; Wilmers et al, 2021 ). Yet, these studies have largely focused on urban areas (e.g., Manenti et al, 2020 ; Silva‐Rodríguez et al, 2020 ), exurban residential areas (e.g., Wilmers et al, 2021 ), or non‐mammalian species (e.g., Derryberry et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human impacts on mammals in and around a protected area before, during, and after COVID‐19 lockdowns

Procko

Naidoo

LeMay

2022

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The dual mandate for many protected areas (PAs) to simultaneously promote recreation and conserve biodiversity may be hampered by negative effects of recreation on wildlife. However, reports of these effects are not consistent, presenting a knowledge gap that hinders evidence‐based decision‐making. We used camera traps to monitor human activity and terrestrial mammals in Golden Ears Provincial Park and the adjacent University of British Columbia Malcolm Knapp Research Forest near Vancouver, Canada, with the objective of discerning relative effects of various forms of recreation on cougars (Puma concolor), black bears (Ursus americanus), black‐tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus), snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus), coyotes (Canis latrans), and bobcats (Lynx rufus). Additionally, public closures of the study area associated with the COVD‐19 pandemic offered an unprecedented period of human‐exclusion through which to explore these effects. Using Bayesian generalized mixed‐effects models, we detected negative effects of hikers (mean posterior estimate = −0.58, 95% credible interval [CI] −1.09 to −0.12) on weekly bobcat habitat use and negative effects of motorized vehicles (estimate = −0.28, 95% CI −0.61 to −0.05) on weekly black bear habitat use. We also found increased cougar detection rates in the PA during the COVID‐19 closure (estimate = 0.007, 95% CI 0.005 to 0.009), but decreased cougar detection rates (estimate = −0.006, 95% CI −0.009 to −0.003) and increased black‐tailed deer detection rates (estimate = 0.014, 95% CI 0.002 to 0.026) upon reopening of the PA. Our results emphasize that effects of human activity on wildlife habitat use and movement may be species‐ and/or activity‐dependent, and that camera traps can be an invaluable tool for monitoring both wildlife and human activity, collecting data even when public access is barred. Further, we encourage PA managers seeking to promote both biodiversity conservation and recreation to explicitly assess trade‐offs between these two goals in their PAs.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human impacts on mammals in and around a protected area before, during, and after COVID‐19 lockdowns

Procko

Naidoo

LeMay

2022

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…habitat selection, human-dominated landscapes, integrated step selection analysis, Panthera leo, Puma concolor, spatio-temporal scale, temporal grain carnivores spatially avoid anthropogenic features (Abrahms et al, 2015;Wilmers et al, 2013) and exhibit temporal shifts in activity and habitat use to minimize the risk of encountering humans (Ordiz et al, 2011;Suraci, Frank, et al, 2019;Wilmers et al, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Globally, large carnivores experience high rates of anthropogenic mortality (Ripple et al., 2014 ). As a result, large carnivores spatially avoid anthropogenic features (Abrahms et al., 2015 ; Wilmers et al., 2013 ) and exhibit temporal shifts in activity and habitat use to minimize the risk of encountering humans (Ordiz et al., 2011 ; Suraci, Frank, et al., 2019 ; Wilmers et al., 2021 ). In addition to avoiding anthropogenic risk, large carnivores must also balance the high energetic demands that come with carnivory, including substantial time spent in locomotion required to regularly hunt and kill large‐bodied prey (Gorman et al., 1998 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal scale of habitat selection for large carnivores: Balancing energetics, risk and finding prey

Nisi

Suraci

Ranc

et al. 2021

Journal of Animal Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The puma Puma concolor population in the fragmented Santa Cruz Mountains (SCM) of California presents an opportunity to explore the degree to which carnivore fear responses align with actual risk from humans. In this population, anthropogenic killings are the leading source of mortality and pumas exhibit strong fear responses to human risk cues (Wilmers et al 2013, 2021, Smith et al 2017, Suraci et al 2019b). As with many large carnivore populations (Inskip and Zimmermann 2009, Ripple et al 2014), retaliatory killing following carnivore consumption of livestock is a common source of mortality for pumas in the SCM.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Puma responses to unreliable human cues suggest an ecological trap in a fragmented landscape

Nisi

Benson

Wilmers

2022

Oikos

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animals' fear of people is widespread across taxa and can mitigate the risk of human‐induced mortality, facilitating coexistence in human‐dominated landscapes. However, humans can be unpredictable predators and anthropogenic cues that animals perceive may not be reliable indicators of the risk of being killed. In these cases, animal fear responses may be ineffective and may even exacerbate the risk of anthropogenic mortality. Here, we explore these questions using a 10‐year dataset of movement and mortality events for the puma Puma concolor population in the fragmented Santa Cruz Mountains of California, for whom the leading cause of death was retaliatory killings by people following livestock loss. We modeled retaliatory killing risk and puma habitat selection relative to residential housing density to evaluate whether puma avoidance of human cues reflected their risk of being killed. We documented a mismatch between human cues, fear responses and actual risk. Rather than scaling directly with housing density, retaliatory killings occurred at intermediate levels of human development and at night. Pumas avoided these areas during the day but selected for these high‐risk areas at night, resulting in a mismatch between cue and risk impacting 17% of the study area. These results are unlikely to be driven by puma hunting behavior: livestock constitute a very small proportion of puma diets, and we found no evidence for the alternative hypothesis that state‐dependent foraging drove depredation of livestock and subsequent retaliatory killings. Our findings indicate that puma responses to human cues are not sufficient to enable human–carnivore coexistence in this area and suggest that reducing risk from humans in places with few perceptible human cues would facilitate carnivore conservation in human‐dominated landscapes. Furthermore, a mismatch between human cues and responses by carnivores can lead to selection rather than avoidance of risky areas, which could result in an ecological trap.

show abstract

COVID-19 suppression of human mobility releases mountain lions from a landscape of fear

Cited by 30 publications

References 28 publications

Human impacts on mammals in and around a protected area before, during, and after COVID‐19 lockdowns

Human impacts on mammals in and around a protected area before, during, and after COVID‐19 lockdowns

Temporal scale of habitat selection for large carnivores: Balancing energetics, risk and finding prey

Puma responses to unreliable human cues suggest an ecological trap in a fragmented landscape

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About