ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2025
The influence of human presence and footprint on animal space use in US national parks.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Needle in a Forest: Searching for Thresholds to Maximize Coexistence Between People and Wildlife in a Remote Wilderness Park.Biology · 2026Article
- Wildlife responses to nonmotorized recreation in the Southern Canadian Rockies: a multiscale analysis near Fernie, BC.Journal of mammalogy · 2026Article
- AccelerometerBehavior: R Package for Classifying Ungulate Behaviors Into Three States.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- The influence of human presence and footprint on animal space use in US national parks.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
68 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Given the importance of protected areas for biodiversity, the growth of visitation to many areas has raised concerns about the effects of humans on wildlife. In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic led to temporary closure of national parks in the United States, offering a pseudonatural experiment to tease apart the effects of permanent infrastructure and transient human presence on animals. We compiled GPS tracking data from 229 individuals of 10 mammal species in 14 parks and used third-order hierarchical resource selection functions to evaluate the influence of the human footprint on animal space use in 2019 and 2020. Averaged across all parks and species, animals avoided the human footprint, whether the park was open or closed. However, although animals in remote areas showed consistent avoidance, on average those in more developed areas switched from avoidance to selection when protected areas were closed. Findings varied across species: some responded consistently negatively to the footprint (wolves, mountain goats), some positively (mule deer, red fox) and others had a strong exposure-mediated response (elk, mountain lion). Furthermore, some species responded more strongly to the park closure (black bear, moose). This study advances our understanding of complex interactions between recreation and wildlife in protected areas.
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.