ArticleBiology2026
Needle in a Forest: Searching for Thresholds to Maximize Coexistence Between People and Wildlife in a Remote Wilderness Park.
Article in Biology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Managers of protected areas are charged with providing public access and enjoyment while minimizing wildlife disturbance, a difficult feat given that wild animals often respond to humans as predators. Evaluating the effects of people on wildlife is critical to inform management actions, but designing methods to assess visitor impacts or test mitigations with free-ranging wildlife is challenging. In Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska, we tested the effects of vessel-based bear viewing on the behavior of brown bears using experimental approaches, and we tested the effects of human presence on wildlife activity at one frontcountry and four backcountry locations during times of normal (2017-2018) vs. low visitation (2020) using remote cameras. We found that vessel approaches within 100 m of brown bears led to increased stress behaviors. Detection rates for five species (black bear, brown bear, wolf, moose, and coyote) varied by site and year. For most species, we did not detect a threshold of human activity at which wildlife activity clearly declined. However, at the four backcountry sites, wolf activity dropped to zero as human activity exceeded 20 camera minutes/week. Furthermore, wolves were not detected at the frontcountry site during all years, suggesting spatial avoidance of a high-human-use area. Additional research is warranted to determine the strength of these associations and whether these observations are generalizable. Our study provides a framework for estimating thresholds of human disturbance to improve management of 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.