Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 407

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Modelling wildlife–human relationships for social species with mixed‐effects resource selection models

Open access
Hebblewhite, Mark, Merrill, Evelyn·2008·Journal of Applied Ecology

Abstract

Summary: Resource selection functions (RSF) have contributed to the conservation of species negatively affected by human activities. Despite these applications, two assumptions frequent many studies: the assumption of independence among groups in social species, and that selection is proportional to resource availability. This latter case is known as a functional response in resource selection, and may be especially important in human–wildlife relationships where there is a fitness cost of proximity to humans. Recent advances in generalized linear mixed models offer new ways to account for resource selection in social species and functional responses by accommodating correlations within hierarchical groups with random intercepts, and functional responses with random coefficients. We illustrate the application of mixed‐effects RSF models using a case study of resource selection by individual wolves Canis lupus living in packs as a function of human activity. In areas of low human activity, wolf resource selection was independent of proximity to humans. As human activity increased, wolves displayed a functional response selecting areas closer to human activity. With increasing human activity, however, wolves displayed spatio‐temporal avoidance of human activity during daylight. This could lead to behaviourally induced trophic cascades mediated by wolf avoidance of human activity, and fits within the framework of attractive sink habitats. Accounting for the hierarchical social structure of wolves clearly showed that the response of wolves to human disturbance was strongly correlated, but different, within packs, and that the correlation was strongest during winter and weakest during summer. Syntheses and applications. Failure to consider the social structure of wolves and the functional response to human activity would result in mistaken conclusions about wolf–human relationships. Our approach provides a unifying framework to understand the contradictory results of previous studies of wolf–human relationships and a template for future studies to evaluate effects of increasing human activity on wildlife.

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/j.1365-2664.2008.01466.x

Cites

8 of 8 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 8 references

Cited by

See all 407

Metadata

Authors
Hebblewhite, M., & Merrill, E.
Venue
Journal of Applied Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-04-22
Volume
45
Issue
3
Pages
834-844
ISSN
  • 0021-8901 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2664
OpenAlex
W1487352212
Cited by
407
References
8
FWCI
14.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Modelling wildlife–human relationships for social species with mixed‐effects resource selection models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01466.x
The paper
Hebblewhite, M., & Merrill, E. (2008). Modelling wildlife–human relationships for social species with mixed‐effects resource selection models. Journal of Applied Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01466.x

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.