ArticleMovement ecology2026
Fluctuations in direct human presence, not predictable weekly cycles, influence avoidance behaviour in ravens.
Article in Movement ecology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Resource use and associated energy expenditure of African crowned eagles (Conservation physiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRhythms in human activity create patterns of opportunities and disturbances for wildlife, influencing their behaviour and spatial ecology. The weekend effect hypothesis posits that weekday-weekend routines in human activity can impact wildlife in creating cyclic conditions. At our study site - an outdoor wildlife park - free-flying ravens opportunistically exploit food intended for captive animals on a routine basis. While disturbances from visitor activity levels are typically low on weekdays and high on weekends, they can also vary day-to-day. Our access to data detailing visitor numbers makes our context well-suited to test whether ravens anticipate and respond to predictable weekday-weekend patterns following (1) a '5 + 2' structure, or if they respond (2) flexibly to fluctuations in direct human activity levels. By testing the weekend effect hypothesis from the perspective of a '5 + 2' pattern versus flexibly responding to fluctuations in human activity, we better understand wildlife response strategies to human activity.
methodsUsing long-term GPS tracking data, we investigated the weekend effect hypothesis by examining raven foraging probability and space use across two temporal scales: (1) daily patterns over five years, encompassing periods of Covid-19 pandemic-related restrictions, and (2) bihourly patterns over six weeks. We hypothesized that increased human activity levels would result in lower foraging probabilities and higher space use in ravens, varying between weekdays and weekends.
resultsOur findings provided limited support for the weekend effect hypothesis, considering a '5 + 2' pattern in human activity. However, ravens consistently avoided elevated human activity by decreasing in their probability of foraging at the site and increasing space use on a daily level.
conclusionsOur study reveals that ravens are behaviourally flexible in their movement responses to disturbance when exploiting anthropogenically created foraging opportunities. Changes influencing anthropogenic resources and disturbances at resources should consider the potential knock-on effects to wildlife.
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.