Cited by 449Avian ecology and behaviorWildlife Ecology and ConservationAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies

Human disturbance: people as predation‐free predators?

Beale, Colin M., Monaghan, Pat·2004·Journal of Applied Ecology

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

Crossref · 10.1111/j.0021-8901.2004.00900.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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