Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 195

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Does hunting or hiking affect wildlife communities in protected areas?

Kays, Roland, Parsons, Arielle W., Baker, Megan C., Kalies, Elizabeth L., Forrester, Tavis, Costello, Robert, Rota, Christopher T., Millspaugh, Joshua J., McShea, William J.·2017·Journal of Applied Ecology

Abstract

Summary: Managed public wild areas have dual mandates to protect biodiversity and provide recreational opportunities for people. These goals could be at odds if recreation, ranging from hiking to legal hunting, disrupts wildlife enough to alter their space use or community structure. We evaluated the effect of managed hunting and recreation on 12 terrestrial wildlife species by employing a large citizen science camera trapping survey at 1947 sites stratified across different levels of human activities in 32 protected forests in the eastern USA. Habitat covariates, especially the amount of large continuous forest and local housing density, were more important than recreation for affecting the distribution of most species. The four most hunted species (white‐tailed deer, raccoons, eastern grey and fox squirrels) were commonly detected throughout the region, but relatively less so at hunted sites. Recreation was most important for affecting the distribution of coyotes, which used hunted areas more compared with unhunted control areas, and did not avoid areas used by hikers. Most species did not avoid human‐made trails, and many predators positively selected them. Bears and bobcats were more likely to avoid people in hunted areas than unhunted preserves, suggesting that they perceive the risk of humans differently depending on local hunting regulations. However, this effect was not found for the most heavily hunted species, suggesting that human hunters are not broadly creating ‘fear’ effects to the wildlife community as would be expected for apex predators. Synthesis and applications. Although we found that hiking and managed hunting have measureable effects on the distribution of some species, these were relatively minor in comparison with the importance of habitat covariates associated with land use and habitat fragmentation. These patterns of wildlife distribution suggest that the present practices for regulating recreation in the region are sustainable and in balance with the goal of protecting wildlife populations and may be facilitated by decades of animal habituation to humans. The citizen science monitoring approach we developed could offer a long‐term monitoring protocol for protected areas, which would help managers to detect where and when the balance between recreation and wildlife has tipped.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1365-2664.12700

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 195

Metadata

Authors
Kays, R., Parsons, A. W., Baker, M. C., Kalies, E. L., Forrester, T., Costello, R., Rota, C. T., Millspaugh, J. J., & McShea, W. J.
Venue
Journal of Applied Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-06-08
Volume
54
Issue
1
Pages
242-252
ISSN
  • 0021-8901 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2664
OpenAlex
W2410688500
Cited by
195
References
4
FWCI
7.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Does hunting or hiking affect wildlife communities in protected areas? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1365-2664.12700
The paper
Kays, R., Parsons, A. W., Baker, M. C., Kalies, E. L., Forrester, T., Costello, R., Rota, C. T., Millspaugh, J. J., & McShea, W. J. (2017). Does hunting or hiking affect wildlife communities in protected areas? Journal of Applied Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12700

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.