ArticleRoyal Society open science2022
Predator or provider? How wild animals respond to mixed messages from humans.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Social information about others' affective states in a human-altered world.The Journal of animal ecology · 2026Review
- Competition and generalization impede cultural formation in wild jackdaws.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Predator or provider? How wild animals respond to mixed messages from humans.Royal Society open science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wild animals encounter humans on a regular basis, but humans vary widely in their behaviour: whereas many people ignore wild animals, some people present a threat, while others encourage animals' presence through feeding. Humans thus send mixed messages to which animals must respond appropriately to be successful. Some species appear to circumvent this problem by discriminating among and/or socially learning about humans, but it is not clear whether such learning strategies are actually beneficial in most cases. Using an individual-based model, we consider how learning rate, individual recognition (IR) of humans, and social learning (SL) affect wild animals' ability to reach an optimal avoidance strategy when foraging in areas frequented by humans. We show that 'true' IR of humans could be costly. We also find that a fast learning rate, while useful when human populations are homogeneous or highly dangerous, can cause unwarranted avoidance in other scenarios if animals generalize. SL reduces this problem by allowing conspecifics to observe benign interactions with humans. SL and a fast learning rate also improve the viability of IR. These results provide an insight into how wild animals may be affected by, and how they may cope with, contrasting human behaviour.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.