It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Wide-ranging carnivores experience tradeoffs between dynamic resource availabilities and heterogeneous risks from humans, with consequences for their ecological function and conservation outcomes. Yet, research investigating these tradeoffs across large carnivore distributions is rare. We assessed how resource availability and anthropogenic risks influence the strength of lion (Panthera leo) responses to disturbance using data from 31 sites across lions’ contemporary range. Lions avoided human disturbance at over two-thirds of sites, though their responses varied depending on site-level characteristics. Lions were more likely to exploit human-dominated landscapes where resources were limited, indicating that resource limitation can outweigh anthropogenic risks and might exacerbate human-carnivore conflict. Lions also avoided human impacts by increasing their nocturnal activity more often at sites with higher production of cattle. The combined effects of expanding human impacts and environmental change threaten to simultaneously downgrade the ecological function of carnivores and intensify human-carnivore conflicts, escalating extinction risks for many species.
A meta-analysis performed with data from 31 study sites indicate that lions reduce their space use and increase nocturnal activity where human disturbance is high, but less so when resources are scarce.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details






1 University of Michigan, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Ann Arbor, USA (GRID:grid.214458.e) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7347)
2 Michigan State University, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, East Lansing, USA (GRID:grid.17088.36) (ISNI:0000 0001 2150 1785)
3 Terrestrial Zoology, Senckenberg Research Institute and Nature Museum, Frankfurt, Germany (GRID:grid.438154.f) (ISNI:0000 0001 0944 0975)
4 University of Oxford, WildCRU, Department of Biology, Tubney, UK (GRID:grid.4991.5) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8948); Zambian Carnivore Programme, Mfuwe, Zambia (GRID:grid.4991.5)
5 Panthera, New York, NY, USA (GRID:grid.423387.9); Nelson Mandela University, Centre for African Conservation Ecology, Port Elizabeth, South Africa (GRID:grid.412139.c) (ISNI:0000 0001 2191 3608); Greater Limpopo Carnivore Programme, Limpopo, Mozambique (GRID:grid.412139.c)
6 Wildlife Conservation Initiative, Arusha, United Republic of Tanzania (GRID:grid.412139.c)
7 Portland State University, Institute for Natural Resources, Portland, USA (GRID:grid.262075.4) (ISNI:0000 0001 1087 1481)
8 University of Newcastle, Conservation Science Research Group, School of Environmental and Life Science, Callaghan, NSW, Australia (GRID:grid.266842.c) (ISNI:0000 0000 8831 109X); Nelson Mandela University, Centre for African Conservation Ecology, Qgeberha, South Africa (GRID:grid.412139.c) (ISNI:0000 0001 2191 3608); University of Pretoria, Centre for Wildlife Management, Tshwane, South Africa (GRID:grid.49697.35) (ISNI:0000 0001 2107 2298)
9 Michigan State University, Department of Integrative Biology, East Lansing, USA (GRID:grid.17088.36) (ISNI:0000 0001 2150 1785); Michigan State University, Program in Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, East Lansing, USA (GRID:grid.17088.36) (ISNI:0000 0001 2150 1785)
10 Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Department of Conservation and Marine Sciences, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Cape Town, South Africa (GRID:grid.411921.e) (ISNI:0000 0001 0177 134X)
11 Molecular Ecology Group, UMEÅ, Sweden (GRID:grid.411921.e)
12 Conservation Science Partners, Inc., Truckee, USA (GRID:grid.473556.6) (ISNI:0000 0005 0389 393X)
13 Cheetah Conservation Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana (GRID:grid.473556.6); San Diego Zoo Institute for Conservation Research, Escondido, USA (GRID:grid.452788.4) (ISNI:0000 0004 0458 5309)
14 University of California, Environmental Studies Department, Santa Cruz, USA (GRID:grid.205975.c) (ISNI:0000 0001 0740 6917)
15 University of Michigan, School for Environment and Sustainability, Ann Arbor, USA (GRID:grid.214458.e) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7347)