Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35308627›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2022

Predator or provider? How wild animals respond to mixed messages from humans.

Madeleine Goumas, Neeltje J Boogert, Laura A Kelley, Thomas Holding

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

4 authors.

Madeleine GoumasCentre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Treliever Road, Penryn TR10 9FE, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9338-2412
Neeltje J BoogertCentre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Treliever Road, Penryn TR10 9FE, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1337-4365
Laura A KelleyCentre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Treliever Road, Penryn TR10 9FE, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0700-1471
Thomas HoldingMax Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, 04103 Leipzig, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9386-6414

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

generalizationhuman–wildlife interactionsindividual recognitionlearning rateoptimal foragingsocial learning

Identifiers

PMID35308627
PMCPMC8924750

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.