Synthesis Human-caused Disturbance Stimuli as a Form of Predation Risk

By A. Frid, Lawrence M. Dill. 2002

1,948 citations recorded by the source corpus.

A growing number of studies quantify the impact of nonlethal human disturbance on the behavior and reproductive success of animals. Athough many are well designed and analytically sophisticated, most lack a theoretical framework for making predictions and for understanding why particular responses occur. Behavioral ecologists have recently begun to fill this theoretical vacuum by applying economic models of antipredator behavior to disturbance studies. In this emerging paradigm, predation and nonlethal disturbance stimuli create similar trade-offs between avoiding perceived risk and other fitness-enhancing activities, such as feeding, parental care, or mating. A vast literature supports the hypothesis that antipredator behavior has a cost to other activities, and that this trade-off is optimized when investment in antipredator behavior tracks short-term changes in predation risk. Prey have evolved antipredator responses to generalized threatening stimuli, such as loud noises and rapidly approaching objects. Thus, when encountering disturbance stimuli ranging from the dramatic, low- flying helicopter to the quiet wildlife photographer, animal responses are likely to follow the same economic principles used by prey encountering predators. Some authors have argued that, similar to predation risk, disturbance stimuli can indirectly affect fitness and population dynamics via the energetic and lost opportunity costs of risk avoidance. We elaborate on this argument by discussing why, from an evolutionary perspective, disturbance stimuli should be analogous to predation risk. We then consider disturbance effects on the behavior of individuals—vigilance, fleeing, habitat selection, mating displays, and parental investment—as well as indirect effects on populations and communities. A wider application of predation risk theory to disturbance studies should increase the generality of predictions and make mitigation more effective without over-regulating human activities.

Subfields: Ecology, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d6769241c5e40b321d519d10c5e63ce3b728cab0

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

Citations in the corpus

Know Thy Enemy: Experience Affects Elk Translocation Success in Risky Landscapes (2007, background): “This could reflect that animals naı̈ve to wolf predation were more quickly eliminated than those naı̈ve to hunters or, alternatively, that learning about the risks associated with hunting can be a slower process (Frid and Dill 2002).”
Zoo visitor effect on mammal behaviour: does noise matter? (2014, background): “Some studies show that animals may perceive human disturbance similarly to 304 predation risk and, consequently, divert their time and energy into anti-predator 305 responses (Frid and Dill, 2002).”
Ungulate flight responses to human disturbance: a review and meta-analysis. (2008, background): “Many factors influence the decision to flee in animals, and flight decisions are economic insomuch as animals flee when the costs of staying (i.e., not fleeing) exceed the benefits of staying (Ydenberg and Dill, 1986; Frid and Dill, 2002; Stankowich and Blumstein, 2005; Cooper and Frederick, 2007).”
Lasting behavioural responses of brown bears to experimental encounters with humans (2013, background): “Given that adaptive behaviours are likely to have arisen after a long coexistence between predators and prey, disturbance stimuli could be analogous to predation risk from an evolutionary perspective (Frid & Dill 2002).”
Impact assessment research: use and misuse of habituation, sensitisation and tolerance in describing wildlife responses to anthropogenic stimuli (2009, background): “Put differently, individuals will take the same ecological considerations into account when they experience human disturbance as they do when they perceive the risk of predation (Lima & Dill 1990, Frid & Dill 2002, Beale & Monaghan 2004b).”
Antipredator behavior in blackbirds: habituation complements risk allocation (2009, background): “In most of these studies, humans have been used as model predators because human disturbance can cause antipredator responses similar to those elicited by natural predators (Frid and Dill 2002).”
Antipredator strategies of house finches: are urban habitats safe spots from predators even when humans are around? (2009, methodology): “…is the result of the abundance of different types of predators (Tomialojc 1982) and (2) house finches react to humans in the same way as they do to other predators (Frid and Dill 2002), although the degree of such response could be lower due to their non-predatory nature (Stankowich and Coss 2006).”
Habituation and habitat changes can moderate the impacts of human disturbance on shorebird breeding performance (2007, background): “Both predation and nonlethal disturbance stimuli involve similar trade-offs between reacting to perceived risk and spending time performing other fitness-enhancing activities, such as foraging or caring for eggs and young (Frid & Dill, 2002).”
Hematological differences between stingrays at tourist and non-visited sites suggest physiological costs of wildlife tourism. (2009, background): “Their response to these changes depends on whether they perceive humans and their associated activities as a disturbance, predatory threat (Frid and Dill, 2002), refuge, or new food source.”
Do bears know they are being hunted (2012, background): “Predator–prey and predator-avoidance theories also provide insight into the effects of human activity on wildlife (Frid and Dill, 2002).”
Making Wildlife Viewable: Habituation and Attraction (2009, neutral): “Animals so disturbed incur a cost on account of being diverted from these other kinds of behavior (Frid & Dill, 2002).”
Shifting perceptions of risk and reward: Dynamic selection for human development by black bears in the western United States (2015, methodology): “the risks associated with human activity (Frid and Dill, 2002).”