Ecology of fear alters behavior of grizzly bears exposed to bear-viewing ecotourism.

Humans are perceived as predators by many species and may generate landscapes of fear, influencing spatiotemporal activity of wildlife. Additionally, wildlife might seek out human activity when faced with predation risks (human shield hypothesis). We used the anthropause, a decrease in human activity resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, to test ecology of fear and human shield hypotheses and quantify the effects of bear-viewing ecotourism on grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) activity. We deployed camera traps in the Khutze watershed in Kitasoo Xai'xais Territory in the absence of humans in 2020 and with experimental treatments of variable human activity when ecotourism resumed in 2021. Daily bear detection rates decreased with more people present and increased with days since people were present. Human activity was also associated with more bear detections at forested sheltered sites and less at exposed sites, likely due to the influence of habitat on bear perception of safety. The number of people negatively influenced adult male detection rates, but we found no influence on female with young detections, providing no evidence that females responded behaviorally to a human shield effect from reduced male activity. We also observed apparent trade-offs of risk avoidance and foraging. When salmon levels were moderate to high, detected bears were more likely to be females with young than adult males on days with more people present. Should managers want to minimize human impacts on bear activity and maintain baseline age-sex class composition at ecotourism sites, multiday closures and daily occupancy limits may be effective. More broadly, this work revealed that antipredator responses can vary with intensity of risk cues, habitat structure, and forage trade-offs and manifest as altered age-sex class composition of individuals using human-influenced areas, highlighting that wildlife avoid people across multiple spatiotemporal scales.

Correction: Publication reform to safeguard wildlife from researcher harm.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000193.].

Publication reform to safeguard wildlife from researcher harm.

Despite abundant focus on responsible care of laboratory animals, we argue that inattention to the maltreatment of wildlife constitutes an ethical blind spot in contemporary animal research. We begin by reviewing significant shortcomings in legal and institutional oversight, arguing for the relatively rapid and transformational potential of editorial oversight at journals in preventing harm to vertebrates studied in the field and outside the direct supervision of institutions. Straightforward changes to animal care policies in journals, which our analysis of 206 journals suggests are either absent (34%), weak, incoherent, or neglected by researchers, could provide a practical, effective, and rapidly imposed safeguard against unnecessary suffering. The Animals in Research: Reporting On Wildlife (ARROW) guidelines we propose here, coupled with strong enforcement, could result in significant changes to how animals involved in wildlife research are treated. The research process would also benefit. Sound science requires animal subjects to be physically, physiologically, and behaviorally unharmed. Accordingly, publication of methods that contravenes animal welfare principles risks perpetuating inhumane approaches and bad science.