Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41633999›Full record

SynthesisNature communications2026

Predator-prey temporal niche partitioning under human disturbance: a meta-analysis.

Eamonn I F Wooster, Erick J Lundgren, Dale G Nimmo, Mitchell A Cowan, Evan C Fricke, Anke S K Frank, Alexandra J R Carthey, Kathryn L Grabowski, Jennifer R Green, Grant D Linley and 7 more

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nature communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

17 authors.

Eamonn I F WoosterGulbali Institute, School of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW, Australia. eif.wooster@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-2907-4076
Erick J LundgrenDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9893-3324
Dale G NimmoGulbali Institute, School of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9814-1009
Mitchell A CowanGulbali Institute, School of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8432-5301
Evan C FrickeDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Anke S K FrankGulbali Institute, School of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0177-4898
Alexandra J R CartheySchool of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University, Macquarie Park, NSW 2109, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0472-2217
Kathryn L GrabowskiDepartment of Zoology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada.
Jennifer R GreenDepartment of Geography, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada.
Grant D LinleyGulbali Institute, School of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3512-2748
Taylor J McEvoyTransdisciplinary School, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0009-0004-3322-4016
Amy SimpsonGulbali Institute, School of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW, Australia.
Dylan WestawayGulbali Institute, School of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW, Australia.
Kwasi C WrensfordDepartment of Zoology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada.
Nicholas S WrightDepartment of Zoology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0798-333X
Shinichi Nakagawa *Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7765-5182
Kaitlyn M Gaynor *Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5747-0543

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human disturbances are modifying animal behavior in ecosystems worldwide, with the potential to reshape species interactions. For instance, human-induced shifts in diel activity may disrupt the alignment of daily activity patterns between interacting species and destabilize temporal niche partitioning. To test this hypothesis, we leverage a global meta-analysis on the effects of human disturbance on diel activity and overlap of 480 mammalian predator-prey and intraguild predator dyads from 57 studies. We demonstrate that human disturbance has no overall effect on temporal overlap. Instead, the body mass ratios between dominant species and subordinate species shape the influence of human disturbance. When subordinates are larger than dominant species, humans compress the temporal niche (i.e., higher diel overlap), but when dominant species are larger than subordinate species, humans expand the temporal niche (i.e., lower diel overlap). These results suggest that larger bodied mammals "lose" the temporal predator-prey response race under human disturbance, with large predators experiencing less overlap with their prey, and large prey facing more overlap with their predators. As the human footprint expands globally, we can expect continued alterations to the animal temporal niche, with consequences for species interactions, population persistence, community structure, and evolutionary dynamics.

Indexed as

Anthropogenic EffectsEcosystemFood ChainPredatory BehaviorAnimalsHumansMammalsPopulation Dynamics

Identifiers

PMID41633999
PMCPMC12979782

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.