人盾假说:捕食者对人类的躲避是否为猎物创造了避难所?

IF 7.9 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY
Ecology Letters Pub Date : 2025-06-17 DOI:10.1111/ele.70138
Kaitlyn M. Gaynor, Eamonn I. F. Wooster, April Robin Martinig, Jennifer R. Green, Aimee Chhen, Sandra Cuadros, Ryan Gill, Gopal Khanal, Nicola Love, Rekha Marcus, C. Lauren Mills, Kwasi Wrensford, Nicholas S. Wright, Stefano Mezzini, Jessa Marley, Michael J. Noonan
{"title":"人盾假说:捕食者对人类的躲避是否为猎物创造了避难所?","authors":"Kaitlyn M. Gaynor,&nbsp;Eamonn I. F. Wooster,&nbsp;April Robin Martinig,&nbsp;Jennifer R. Green,&nbsp;Aimee Chhen,&nbsp;Sandra Cuadros,&nbsp;Ryan Gill,&nbsp;Gopal Khanal,&nbsp;Nicola Love,&nbsp;Rekha Marcus,&nbsp;C. Lauren Mills,&nbsp;Kwasi Wrensford,&nbsp;Nicholas S. Wright,&nbsp;Stefano Mezzini,&nbsp;Jessa Marley,&nbsp;Michael J. Noonan","doi":"10.1111/ele.70138","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>As anthropogenic disturbance restructures ecological communities worldwide, ecologists have developed and tested hypotheses about which species “win” and “lose” in the face of human impacts. One heavily invoked paradigm is that of the human shield, which posits that predators avoid areas of human disturbance due to perceived risk from humans, and prey therefore seek refuge in these areas of perceived safety. Since its introduction in 2007, the human shield hypothesis (HSH) has gained popularity in the ecological literature, although there are more passing mentions of human shields than there are robust tests of the HSH. Here, we systematically review evidence for the HSH and evaluate how it is commonly discussed and tested. While there are several clear-cut cases of human shields, the emergence of human shields is highly context-dependent. By formally outlining the assumptions of the HSH, we derive predictions about what ecological and anthropogenic contexts are most likely to be conducive to human shields. Further robust studies that compete the HSH against alternative hypotheses and account for confounding factors can shed light on the role of human shields in human-modified ecosystems and inform the conservation and management of wildlife in a changing world.</p>","PeriodicalId":161,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Letters","volume":"28 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ele.70138","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Human Shield Hypothesis: Does Predator Avoidance of Humans Create Refuges for Prey?\",\"authors\":\"Kaitlyn M. Gaynor,&nbsp;Eamonn I. F. Wooster,&nbsp;April Robin Martinig,&nbsp;Jennifer R. Green,&nbsp;Aimee Chhen,&nbsp;Sandra Cuadros,&nbsp;Ryan Gill,&nbsp;Gopal Khanal,&nbsp;Nicola Love,&nbsp;Rekha Marcus,&nbsp;C. Lauren Mills,&nbsp;Kwasi Wrensford,&nbsp;Nicholas S. Wright,&nbsp;Stefano Mezzini,&nbsp;Jessa Marley,&nbsp;Michael J. Noonan\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ele.70138\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>As anthropogenic disturbance restructures ecological communities worldwide, ecologists have developed and tested hypotheses about which species “win” and “lose” in the face of human impacts. One heavily invoked paradigm is that of the human shield, which posits that predators avoid areas of human disturbance due to perceived risk from humans, and prey therefore seek refuge in these areas of perceived safety. Since its introduction in 2007, the human shield hypothesis (HSH) has gained popularity in the ecological literature, although there are more passing mentions of human shields than there are robust tests of the HSH. Here, we systematically review evidence for the HSH and evaluate how it is commonly discussed and tested. While there are several clear-cut cases of human shields, the emergence of human shields is highly context-dependent. By formally outlining the assumptions of the HSH, we derive predictions about what ecological and anthropogenic contexts are most likely to be conducive to human shields. Further robust studies that compete the HSH against alternative hypotheses and account for confounding factors can shed light on the role of human shields in human-modified ecosystems and inform the conservation and management of wildlife in a changing world.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":161,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecology Letters\",\"volume\":\"28 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ele.70138\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecology Letters\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ele.70138\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecology Letters","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ele.70138","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随着人为干扰在全球范围内重构生态群落,生态学家已经发展并验证了哪些物种在面对人类影响时“赢”和“输”的假设。一个经常被引用的范例是人体盾牌,它假设捕食者由于感知到来自人类的风险而避开人类干扰的区域,因此猎物在这些感知到安全的区域寻求庇护。自2007年引入以来,人体盾牌假说(HSH)在生态文献中越来越受欢迎,尽管有更多的人盾被提及,而不是HSH的可靠测试。在这里,我们系统地回顾了HSH的证据,并评估了它是如何被普遍讨论和测试的。虽然有几个明确的人体盾牌案例,但人体盾牌的出现高度依赖于具体情况。通过正式概述HSH的假设,我们得出了关于哪些生态和人为环境最有可能有利于人体盾牌的预测。进一步有力的研究将HSH与其他假设进行比较,并解释混淆因素,可以阐明人类盾牌在人类改造的生态系统中的作用,并为不断变化的世界中的野生动物保护和管理提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The Human Shield Hypothesis: Does Predator Avoidance of Humans Create Refuges for Prey?

The Human Shield Hypothesis: Does Predator Avoidance of Humans Create Refuges for Prey?

The Human Shield Hypothesis: Does Predator Avoidance of Humans Create Refuges for Prey?

As anthropogenic disturbance restructures ecological communities worldwide, ecologists have developed and tested hypotheses about which species “win” and “lose” in the face of human impacts. One heavily invoked paradigm is that of the human shield, which posits that predators avoid areas of human disturbance due to perceived risk from humans, and prey therefore seek refuge in these areas of perceived safety. Since its introduction in 2007, the human shield hypothesis (HSH) has gained popularity in the ecological literature, although there are more passing mentions of human shields than there are robust tests of the HSH. Here, we systematically review evidence for the HSH and evaluate how it is commonly discussed and tested. While there are several clear-cut cases of human shields, the emergence of human shields is highly context-dependent. By formally outlining the assumptions of the HSH, we derive predictions about what ecological and anthropogenic contexts are most likely to be conducive to human shields. Further robust studies that compete the HSH against alternative hypotheses and account for confounding factors can shed light on the role of human shields in human-modified ecosystems and inform the conservation and management of wildlife in a changing world.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ecology Letters
Ecology Letters 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
17.60
自引率
3.40%
发文量
201
审稿时长
1.8 months
期刊介绍: Ecology Letters serves as a platform for the rapid publication of innovative research in ecology. It considers manuscripts across all taxa, biomes, and geographic regions, prioritizing papers that investigate clearly stated hypotheses. The journal publishes concise papers of high originality and general interest, contributing to new developments in ecology. Purely descriptive papers and those that only confirm or extend previous results are discouraged.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信