Human disturbance: people as predation‐free predators?
Abstract
Summary Human disturbance has been associated with declines in breeding success in numerous species and is of general concern to conservationists. However, the current framework for predicting and minimizing disturbance effects is weak and there is considerable uncertainty about why animals are disturbed by people in the first place. We developed a behavioural model of perceived predation risk as a framework for understanding the effects of disturbance on cliff‐nesting birds. This encompassed the concept that the effects of disturbance should increase with increasing numbers of visitors, and decrease with distance from the nest, an insight ignored in current conservation practice. The predictions of this model were tested using field data on nesting success in two species of seabird, kittiwake Rissa tridactyla and guillemot Uria aalge. Statistical models of nesting success in both species suggested that perceived predation risk is a good predictor of the effects of disturbance. Synthesis and applications. Our findings suggest that fixed set‐back distances and buffer zones are likely to be inappropriate conservation measures in situations where the numbers of visitors to wildlife areas fluctuates spatially and temporally, as is generally the case. In managing access to wildlife areas there is a need to ensure that larger parties of visitors are kept further away from the nesting areas of vulnerable species or that set‐back distances are determined for the largest party likely…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Sea birds perceive human disturbance as a potential predation risk.
“Beale & Monaghan (2004) suggested that sea birds perceive the 143 human disturbance as a potential predation risk.”
From Pond Use by Captive African Penguins (<i>Spheniscus demersus</i>) in an Immersive Exhibit Adjacent to Human Bathers (2015) · cites this paper as Beale & Monaghan (2004)
Cites
A review of human disturbance effects on nesting colonial waterbirds
Carney, K. M., & Sydeman, W. J. (1999) · Waterbirds: The International Journal of Waterbird Biology · doi:10.2307/1521995 · Cited by 389 · see citing works
Effects of human activity on Adelie penguin Pygoscelis adeliae breeding success
Giese, M. (1996) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/0006-3207(95)00060-7 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
African Penguin tolerance to humans depends on historical exposure at colony level
PICHEGRU, L., EDWARDS, T. B., DILLEY, B. J., FLOWER, T. P., & RYAN, P. G. (2016) · Bird Conservation International · doi:10.1017/s0959270915000313 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Ozella, L., Favaro, L., Carnovale, I., & Pessani, D. (2015) · Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science · doi:10.1080/10888705.2014.977384 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
- Authors
- Beale, C. M., & Monaghan, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Glasgow (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Beale, Colin M.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-04
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 335-343
- ISSN
- 0021-8901 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2664
- OpenAlex
- W1972538931
- Cited by
- 449
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 56 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 16.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Applied Ecology (publishedVersion)
- ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Scottish Natural Heritage
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Avian ecology and behavior
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
- Keywords
- human disturbance, perceived predation risk, kittiwake, guillemots, nest success, buffer zones, behavioural models
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