Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42634790›Full record

ArticleCurrent zoology2026

Reactions of roe deer to human disturbances and wolf predation in a Polish forest.

Haidt Andżelika, Gawryś Radosław, Szewczyk Maciej, Kateryna Lipińska, Karolina Lubińska

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current zoology, 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

5 authors.

Haidt AndżelikaDepartment of Forest Ecology, Forest Research Institute, Braci Leśnej 3, Sękocin Stary 05-090, Poland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3570-8899
Gawryś RadosławDepartment of Forest Ecology, Forest Research Institute, Braci Leśnej 3, Sękocin Stary 05-090, Poland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3432-3097
Szewczyk MaciejDepartment of Vertebrate Ecology and Zoology, Faculty of Biology, University of Gdańsk, Wita Stwosza 59, Gdańsk 80-308, Poland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7424-1120
Kateryna LipińskaDepartment of Forest Ecology, Forest Research Institute, Braci Leśnej 3, Sękocin Stary 05-090, Poland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5151-4146
Karolina LubińskaBory Tucholskie National Park, Długa 33, Charzykowy 89-606, Poland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-7334-123X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antipredator responses of prey are important because of their potential trophic cascade effects. Predator responses are especially important for species that impact the economy, such as ungulates. Past research has focused on the behavioral adaptation of roe deer, the most common ungulate in Europe, to human and lynx pressure. However, the European wolf population has increased in the last decade and in some recently recolonized parts of Poland roe deer constitute the largest food source for wolves. Unlike in moose and red deer, no evidence has yet been found for changes in the vigilance-foraging time ratio in roe deer in response to wolves. We took the unique opportunity to study the behavior of roe deer during the partial recolonization by wolves of a large forest complex (Tuchola Forest) in Poland. Using video cameras, we found that roe deer react differently to the presence of wolves compared with humans. Wolf predation increases roe deer movement. In comparison, anthropopressure causes roe deer to mainly use an avoidance strategy, limiting their activity to times of day when people are not present. This temporal avoidance strategy was similar whether human pressure resulted from recreation or hunting.

Indexed as

fear ecologygray wolfhuntingrecreationroe deer

Identifiers

PMID42634790
PMCPMC13500159

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.