The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Landscapes of Coexistence for terrestrial carnivores: the ecological consequences of being downgraded from ultimate to penultimate predator by humans
Abstract
Fear of predation can have major impacts on the behaviour of prey species. Recently the concept of the ecology of fear has been defined and formalised; yet there has been relatively little focus on how these ideas apply to large carnivore species which, although not prey sensu stricto, also experience fear as a result of threats from humans. Large carnivores are likely also subject to a Landscape of Fear similar to that described for prey species. We argue that although fear is generic, ‘human‐caused mortality’ represents a distinct and very important cause of fear for large carnivores, particularly terrestrial large carnivores as their activities overlap with those of humans to a greater degree. We introduce the idea of a ‘Landscape of Coexistence’ for large carnivores to denote a subset of the Landscape of Fear where sufficient areas of low human‐caused mortality risk are present in the landscape for long term coexistence of large carnivores and humans. We then explore aspects of terrestrial large carnivore behavioural ecology that may be best explained by risk of human‐caused mortality, and how the nature of a Landscape of Coexistence for these large carnivores is likely to be shaped by specific factors such as habitat structure, wild and domestic prey base, and human distribution and behaviour. The human characteristics of this Landscape of Coexistence may be as important in determining large carnivore distribution and behavioural ecology as the distribution of resources. Understanding the Landscape of Coexistence for terrestrial large carnivores is therefore important for their biology and conservation throughout large parts of their remaining ranges. Synthesis The Landscape of Fear concept describing the relationship between predator and prey also applies to the relationship between humans and top carnivores. We synthesise current research to introduce the Landscape of Coexistence concept, arguing that top predators respond to the risks of human‐caused mortality through spatiotemporal partitioning of activities to reduce contact with people. The character of the Landscape of Coexistence may be more important than the distribution of resources in determining large carnivore distribution and behavioural ecology in human dominated landscapes. Understanding their behavioural responses to human threats is crucial to successful conservation of large carnivores.
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
Trophic Downgrading of Planet Earth
Estes, J. A., Terborgh, J., Brashares, J. S., Power, M. E., Berger, J., Bond, W. J., Carpenter, S. R., Essington, T. E., Holt, R. D., Jackson, J. B. C., et al. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1205106 · Cited by 4,087
The Ecology of Fear: Optimal Foraging, Game Theory, and Trophic Interactions
Brown, J. S., Laundre, J. W., & Gurung, M. (1999) · Journal of Mammalogy · doi:10.2307/1383287 · Cited by 1,347
The Ecology of Carnivore Social Behaviour
Macdonald, D. W. (1983) · Nature · doi:10.1038/301379a0 · Cited by 1,192
Self-citationPartitioning of time as an ecological resource
Kronfeld-Schor, N., & Dayan, T. (2003) · Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132435 · Cited by 1,021 · cited 1×
“The most effective way in which animals might avoid predation but still utilise high risk areas or features is by showing temporal changes in activity patterns and using more risky areas at times when predators are the least active (reviewed by Kronfeld-Schor and Dayan 2003).”
BackgroundWolves and the Ecology of Fear: Can Predation Risk Structure Ecosystems?
RIPPLE, W. J., & BESCHTA, R. L. (2004) · BioScience · doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0755:wateof]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 813
ELK ALTER HABITAT SELECTION AS AN ANTIPREDATOR RESPONSE TO WOLVES
Creel, S., Winnie, J., Maxwell, B., Hamlin, K., & Creel, M. (2005) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/05-0032 · Cited by 774
Predation risk affects reproductive physiology and demography of elk
Creel, S., Christianson, D., Liley, S., & Winnie, J. A. (2007) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1135918 · Cited by 666
Planning for success: Serengeti lions seek prey accessibility rather than abundance
HOPCRAFT, J. G. C., SINCLAIR, A. R. E., & PACKER, C. (2005) · Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2005.00955.x · Cited by 557
Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator–prey system
Kauffman, M. J., Varley, N., Smith, D. W., Stahler, D. R., MacNulty, D. R., & Boyce, M. S. (2007) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01059.x · Cited by 350
A survey of the effects of wolf predation risk on pregnancy rates and calf recruitment in elk
Creel, S., Christianson, D. A., & Winnie, J. A. (2011) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/11-0768.1 · Cited by 58
Cited by
Rangeland Systems: Processes, Management and Challenges
(2017) · Springer Series on Environmental Management · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-46709-2 · Cited by 197
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Oriol‐Cotterill, A., Valeix, M., Frank, L. G., Riginos, C., & Macdonald, D. W.
- Venue
- Oikos
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-05-26
- Volume
- 124
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1263-1273
- ISSN
- 0030-1299 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0706
- OpenAlex
- W2043943935
- Cited by
- 216
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 10.49
- 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: Landscapes of Coexistence for terrestrial carnivores: the ecological consequences of being downgraded from ultimate to penultimate predator by humans. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/oik.02224
- The paper
- Oriol‐Cotterill, A., Valeix, M., Frank, L. G., Riginos, C., & Macdonald, D. W. (2015). Landscapes of Coexistence for terrestrial carnivores: the ecological consequences of being downgraded from ultimate to penultimate predator by humans. Oikos. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.02224
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.