Do wild ungulates experience higher stress with humans than with large carnivores?

Zbyryt, Adam; Bubnicki, Jakub W.; Kuijper, Dries P. J.; Dehnhard, Martin; Churski, Marcin; Schmidt, Krzysztof

doi:10.1093/beheco/arx142

Cited by 97 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Non-lethal human disturbance therefore appears to be a strong driver of red deer habitat selection in the no-hunting season in this human-dominated landscape. In general, there is growing evidence that non-lethal human disturbance has significant impact on wildlife behaviour (Stabach et al, 2016;B€ otsch et al, 2017;Filla et al, 2017;Lesmerises et al, 2017;Scholten, Moe & Hegland, 2018;Wisdom et al, 2018;Zbyryt et al, 2018). We acknowledge, however, that there was some hunting on other species (roe deer males: from 1 May and wild boar males: all year long) outside the red deer hunting season we defined (see Methods), though much less than in autumn when red deer themselves are hunted.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety first: seasonal and diel habitat selection patterns by red deer in a contrasted landscape

Fattebert

Мorelle

Jurkiewicz³

et al. 2019

Journal of Zoology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spatially heterogeneous landscapes provide solutions to the forage‐safety trade‐off when animals can access risky but energetically rewarding patches, or safer but resource‐poor patches. It can be advantageous for an animal to secure access to habitat heterogeneity at a broader scale in order to be able to dynamically adjust finer scale habitat use through time. We tested the hypothesis of a forage‐safety trade‐off optimization tactic in a hunted red deer (Cervus elaphus) population following a large accidental forest fire. We used telemetry data and fitted resource selection functions at the second‐ and third‐order scales. We then integrated the order‐specific probabilities into single, all‐in‐one multi‐level layers that synthetically captured the habitat selection patterns across scales by informing landscape‐scale annual habitat selectivity with finer within‐home‐range seasonal and diel processes. At the landscape scale, red deer anchored their home‐range at the interface of the disturbed and undisturbed patches, thereby securing habitat heterogeneity. This consequently enabled them to modulate within‐home‐range habitat selection depending on the season and the time of the day. In both seasons, red deer consistently used the burnt area for cover more during the day, and foraged in the unburnt forest and open fields at night. Interestingly there were no major seasonal differences in this diel habitat selection patterns. Increased mortality risk during the hunting season did not substantially change their spatial behaviour. We conclude that year‐round avoidance of non‐lethal human disturbance is the main driver of red deer habitat use in this system.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety first: seasonal and diel habitat selection patterns by red deer in a contrasted landscape

Fattebert

Мorelle

Jurkiewicz³

et al. 2019

Journal of Zoology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, Zbyryt et al. () found that FGM levels in deer were lower in natural areas where predators were present than in human‐dominated landscapes suggesting the relationship between FGM and predator presence is not always positive. In our study, we observed active predators of kangaroos (i.e., dingos and Wedge‐tailed Eagles) at three of the southern non‐urban sites; however, animals in these areas had higher FGM levels.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A recent study on two species of deer in Poland demonstrated the role that anthropogenic factors may play in influencing stress levels of large mammals (Zbyryt et al. ). The research revealed a positive correlation between FGM and anthropogenic disturbance, hunting, road density, and increases in built‐up areas.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Not all urban landscapes are the same: interactions between urban land use and stress in a large herbivorous mammal

Brunton

Clemente

Burnett

2020

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urbanization significantly impacts the health and viability of wildlife populations yet it is not well understood how urban landscapes differ from non‐urban landscapes with regard to their effects on wildlife. This study investigated the physiological response of eastern grey kangaroos (Macropus giganteus) to land use at a landscape scale. Using fecal glucocorticoid metabolites (FGM) we compared stress levels of kangaroo populations in urban and non‐urban environments. We modeled FGM concentrations from 24 kangaroo populations against land use (urban or non‐urban) and other anthropogenic and environmental factors, using a linear modeling approach. We found that land use was a significant predictor of FGM concentrations in eastern grey kangaroos with significant differences in concentrations between urban and non‐urban populations. However, the direction of the relationship differed between northern and southern regions of Australia. In the northern study sites, kangaroos in urban areas had significantly higher FGM levels than their non‐urban counterparts. In contrast, in southern sites, where kangaroos occur in high densities in many urban areas, urban kangaroos had lower FGM concentrations than non‐urban kangaroos. Rainfall and temperature were also significant predictors of FGM and the direction of the relationship was consistent across both regions. These results are consistent with the contrasting abundance and persistence of kangaroo populations within the urban matrix between the two study regions. In the northern region many populations have declined over the last two decades and are fragmented, also occurring at lower densities than in southern sites. Our study indicates that it is the characteristics of urban environments, rather than the urban environment per se, which determines the extent of impacts of urbanization on kangaroos. This research provides insights into how the design of urban landscapes can influence large mammal populations.

show abstract

“…While simulating consumptive effects, it will be important to reduce the potential for human-caused fear effects as fear of humans can influence prey behaviour and stress , Zbyryt et al 2017, which could ultimately affect reproductive rates. However, in most studies, individuals must be captured and handled to measure physical condition, reproduction and monitor population size.…”

Section: The "Fear Removal" Treatment To Quantify Fear Effects In Wilmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying fear effects on prey demography in nature

Peers

Majchrzak

Neilson

et al. 2018

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, it has been argued that the effect of predator fear exacts a greater demographic toll on prey populations than the direct killing of prey. However, efforts to quantify the effects of fear have primarily relied on experiments that replace predators with predator cues. Interpretation of these experiments must consider two important caveats: (1) the magnitude of experimenter-induced predator cues may not be realistically comparable to those of the prey's natural sensory environment, and (2) given functional predators are removed from the treatments, the fear effect is measured in the absence of any consumptive effects, a situation which never occurs in nature. We contend that demographic consequences of fear in natural populations may have been overestimated because the intensity of predator cues applied by experimenters in the majority of studies has been unnaturally high, in some instances rarely occurring in nature without consumption. Furthermore, the removal of consumption from the treatments creates the potential situation that individual prey in poor condition (those most likely to contribute strongly to the observed fear effects via starvation or reduced reproductive output) may have been consumed by predators in nature prior to the expression of fear effects, thus confounding consumptive and fear effects. Here, we describe an alternative treatment design that does not utilize predator cues, and in so doing, better quantifies the demographic effect of fear on wild populations. This treatment substitutes the traditional cue experiment where consumptive effects are eliminated and fear is simulated with a design where fear is removed and consumptive effects are simulated through the experimental removal of prey. Comparison to a natural population would give a more robust estimate of the effect of fear in the presence of consumption on the demographic variable of interest. This approach represents a critical advance in quantifying the mechanistic pathways through which predation structures ecological communities. Discussing the merits of both treatments will motivate researchers to go beyond simply describing the existence of fear effects and focus on testing their true magnitude in wild populations and natural communities.

show abstract

Do wild ungulates experience higher stress with humans than with large carnivores?

Cited by 97 publications

References 69 publications

Safety first: seasonal and diel habitat selection patterns by red deer in a contrasted landscape

Safety first: seasonal and diel habitat selection patterns by red deer in a contrasted landscape

Not all urban landscapes are the same: interactions between urban land use and stress in a large herbivorous mammal

Quantifying fear effects on prey demography in nature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About