Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30386587›Full record

ReviewEcology and evolution2018

Understanding the population consequences of disturbance.

Enrico Pirotta, Cormac G Booth, Daniel P Costa, Erica Fleishman, Scott D Kraus, David Lusseau, David Moretti, Leslie F New, Robert S Schick, Lisa K Schwarz and 6 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ecology and evolution, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

66 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Blood parameters of wild-caught harbor seals (Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The combined effects of multiple stressors in an endangered, long-lived species: Lessons learned and ways forward.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2025
    Article
  11. Respiration rates and inferred mass-specific field metabolic rates decline with body size among five sympatric cetaceans.Journal of comparative physiology. B, Biochemical, systemic, and environmental physiology · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Enrico PirottaDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics Washington State University Vancouver Washington.ORCID 0000-0003-3541-3676
Cormac G BoothSMRU Consulting New Technology Centre St Andrews UK.
Daniel P CostaDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of California Santa Cruz California.
Erica FleishmanDepartment of Environmental Science and Policy University of California Davis California.
Scott D KrausAnderson-Cabot Center for Ocean Life New England Aquarium Boston Massachusetts.
David LusseauSchool of Biological Sciences University of Aberdeen Aberdeen UK.
David MorettiNaval Undersea Warfare Center Newport Rhode Island.
Leslie F NewDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics Washington State University Vancouver Washington.
Robert S SchickDuke University Durham North Carolina.
Lisa K SchwarzInstitute of Marine Sciences University of California Santa Cruz California.
Samantha E SimmonsMarine Mammal Commission Bethesda Maryland.
Len ThomasCentre for Research into Ecological and Environmental Modelling University of St Andrews St Andrews UK.
Peter L TyackSea Mammal Research Unit Scottish Oceans Institute School of Biology University of St Andrews St Andrews UK.
Michael J WeiseOffice of Naval Research Marine Mammal & Biology Program Arlington Virginia.
Randall S WellsChicago Zoological Society's Sarasota Dolphin Research Program c/o Mote Marine Laboratory Sarasota Florida.
John HarwoodCentre for Research into Ecological and Environmental Modelling University of St Andrews St Andrews UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Managing the nonlethal effects of disturbance on wildlife populations has been a long-term goal for decision makers, managers, and ecologists, and assessment of these effects is currently required by European Union and United States legislation. However, robust assessment of these effects is challenging. The management of human activities that have nonlethal effects on wildlife is a specific example of a fundamental ecological problem: how to understand the population-level consequences of changes in the behavior or physiology of individual animals that are caused by external stressors. In this study, we review recent applications of a conceptual framework for assessing and predicting these consequences for marine mammal populations. We explore the range of models that can be used to formalize the approach and we identify critical research gaps. We also provide a decision tree that can be used to select the most appropriate model structure given the available data.

Indexed as

anthropogenic disturbanceenvironmental impact assessmentsmarine mammalsnonconsumptive effectspopulation consequencestrait‐mediated indirect interactionsuncertainty

Identifiers

PMID30386587
PMCPMC6202709

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.