Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40525791›Full record

SynthesisEcology letters2025

The Human Shield Hypothesis: Does Predator Avoidance of Humans Create Refuges for Prey?

Kaitlyn M Gaynor, Eamonn I F Wooster, April Robin Martinig, Jennifer R Green, Aimee Chhen, Sandra Cuadros, Ryan Gill, Gopal Khanal, Nicola Love, Rekha Marcus and 6 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Ecology letters, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. When humans shield predators from danger.Trends in ecology & evolution · 2025
    Article
  16. 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

16 authors.

Kaitlyn M GaynorDepartment of Zoology, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5747-0543
Eamonn I F WoosterGulbali Institute, School of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Albury, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2907-4076
April Robin MartinigOkanagan Institute for Biodiversity, Resilience, and Ecosystem Services, The University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0972-6903
Jennifer R GreenDepartment of Geography, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8433-3405
Aimee ChhenOkanagan Institute for Biodiversity, Resilience, and Ecosystem Services, The University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-1850-1786
Sandra CuadrosOkanagan Institute for Biodiversity, Resilience, and Ecosystem Services, The University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada.
Ryan GillOkanagan Institute for Biodiversity, Resilience, and Ecosystem Services, The University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada.
Gopal KhanalInstitute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Nicola LoveDepartment of Zoology, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Rekha MarcusOkanagan Institute for Biodiversity, Resilience, and Ecosystem Services, The University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada.
C Lauren MillsOkanagan Institute for Biodiversity, Resilience, and Ecosystem Services, The University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada.
Kwasi WrensfordDepartment of Zoology, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Nicholas S WrightDepartment of Zoology, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0798-333X
Stefano MezziniOkanagan Institute for Biodiversity, Resilience, and Ecosystem Services, The University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada.
Jessa MarleyWildlife Science Centre, Biodiversity Pathways, University of British Columbia Okanagan, Revelstoke, British Columbia, Canada.
Michael J NoonanOkanagan Institute for Biodiversity, Resilience, and Ecosystem Services, The University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4512-0535

Funding

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada RGPIN-2021-02758Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada RPGIN-2022-03096University of British Columbia Collaborative Research Mobility Award
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As anthropogenic disturbance restructures ecological communities worldwide, ecologists have developed and tested hypotheses about which species "win" and "lose" in the face of human impacts. One heavily invoked paradigm is that of the human shield, which posits that predators avoid areas of human disturbance due to perceived risk from humans, and prey therefore seek refuge in these areas of perceived safety. Since its introduction in 2007, the human shield hypothesis (HSH) has gained popularity in the ecological literature, although there are more passing mentions of human shields than there are robust tests of the HSH. Here, we systematically review evidence for the HSH and evaluate how it is commonly discussed and tested. While there are several clear-cut cases of human shields, the emergence of human shields is highly context-dependent. By formally outlining the assumptions of the HSH, we derive predictions about what ecological and anthropogenic contexts are most likely to be conducive to human shields. Further robust studies that compete the HSH against alternative hypotheses and account for confounding factors can shed light on the role of human shields in human-modified ecosystems and inform the conservation and management of wildlife in a changing world.

Indexed as

Anthropogenic EffectsEcosystemFood ChainPredatory BehaviorAnimalsConservation of Natural ResourcesHumansModels, Biologicalanimal behaviourhabitat selectionhuman disturbancelandscape of fearpredator–prey interactionsrecreationsystematic reviewtrophic cascades

Identifiers

PMID40525791
PMCPMC12172615

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.