ArticleMovement ecology2026
Stuck in space but not in time: multiple-scale resource selection in a stationary prey.
Article in Movement ecology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrey species need to adjust their habitat selection either temporally or spatially to reduce predation risk or human disturbance. We tested the risk allocation hypothesis that poses that foraging is higher in low-risk habitats and during low-risk periods for impala (Aepyceros melampus) in the Serengeti Ecosystem. We expected impalas to select ranges that balance long-term predation risk and forage availability and adjust their habitat utilization within their ranges temporally to balance short-term predation risk and energy intake.
methodsWe modelled multi-scale resource selection for 36 GPS-tracked impala (2016-2018) to disentangle spatial and temporal trade-offs between forage acquisition and predation risk using resource selection functions at the landscape and within-home-range level. We contrasted resource selection inside and outside of Serengeti NP (SNP) for woody cover, forage availability (vegetation heterogeneity, NDVI) and risky places (proximity to water, terrain ruggedness). We also modelled responses to diel and lunar cycles in space use.
resultsImpalas attuned their resource selection both towards maximizing forage availability and minimizing risk exposure, especially at the landscape level. While home-ranges were generally placed in more homogeneous woodland close to water sources, impalas preferred to use more heterogeneous, open and rugged patches within their home-ranges. They adjusted their responses outside SNP by placing their home-ranges in less rugged terrain and farther from water sources. Impalas balanced foraging and risk temporally by adjusting their preferences to circalunar and diel patterns.
conclusionsImpala attuned their home-range placement and utilization according to the 'landscape of fear' hypothesis inhabiting a 'squeezed' landscape. Here, prey to a functionally diverse carnivore guild clearly balanced their space use between food acquisition and spatio-temporal risk avoidance. Humans, however, acted as a 'super-predator' eliciting a stronger behavioural response compared to natural predators. Following the risk allocation hypothesis, the presence of humans was of such an intensity and predictability that it changed the anti-predator responses in impala compared to the adjacent natural system with carnivores only. A functional response in habitat selection indicated that impala avoided long-term spatial risk in home-range placement, while within their home-ranges short-term temporal risk mimicked the diel patterns observed within the protected area with natural predators only.
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.