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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-3338 · Cited by 35,305
Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000) · doi:10.1002/0471722146 · Cited by 20,302
Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS
(2001) · Technometrics · doi:10.1198/tech.2001.s574 · Cited by 9,278
Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (1998) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-2917-7 · Cited by 3,387
HUMAN ACTIVITY MEDIATES A TROPHIC CASCADE CAUSED BY WOLVES
Hebblewhite, M., White, C. A., Nietvelt, C. G., McKenzie, J. A., Hurd, T. E., Fryxell, J. M., Bayley, S. E., & Paquet, P. C. (2005) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/04-1269 · Cited by 484
Self-citationHuman disturbance: people as predation‐free predators?
Beale, C. M., & Monaghan, P. (2004) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.0021-8901.2004.00900.x · Cited by 449
Multiscale wolf predation risk for elk: does migration reduce risk?
Hebblewhite, M., & Merrill, E. H. (2007) · Oecologia · doi:10.1007/s00442-007-0661-y · Cited by 238
Self-citationThe Practices of Wolf Persecution, Protection, and Restoration in Canada and the United States
MUSIANI, M., & PAQUET, P. C. (2004) · BioScience · doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0050:tpowpp]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 131 · cited 2×
“Second, wolves have demonstrated wide variation in response to human activity related to previous persecution by humans ( Musiani & Paquet 2004 ).”
Background
Cited by
Human Activity Helps Prey Win the Predator-Prey Space Race
Muhly, T. B., Semeniuk, C., Massolo, A., Hickman, L., & Musiani, M. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017050 · Cited by 337
Northrup, J. M., Vander Wal, E., Bonar, M., Fieberg, J., Laforge, M. P., Leclerc, M., Prokopenko, C. M., & Gerber, B. D. (2022) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1002/eap.2470 · Cited by 227
“…models or population-level hierarchical models with coefficients (β) varying by individual animal (i.e., a model with slopes varying by individual; Hebblewhite and Merrill 2008, Mabille et al. 2012), followed by a separate regression on the relationship between coefficients and availability.”
BackgroundMethodForest elephant movement and habitat use in a tropical forest-grassland mosaic in Gabon
Mills, E. C., Poulsen, J. R., Fay, J. M., Morkel, P., Clark, C. J., Meier, A., Beirne, C., & White, L. J. T. (2018) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0199387 · Cited by 85
What drives fine‐scale movements of large herbivores? A case study using moose
Leblond, M., Dussault, C., & Ouellet, J. (2010) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.06104.x · Cited by 77
Linking Dynamic Habitat Selection with Wading Bird Foraging Distributions across Resource Gradients
Beerens, J. M., Noonburg, E. G., & Gawlik, D. E. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0128182 · Cited by 53
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.