If you want to dig into some theory about how to predict the costs of human-induced fear to populations, check out Box 1, which presents a heuristic model to quantify net costs by breaking down consumptive and non-consumptive effects. 7/10

Importantly, only about half of studies that test for evidence of human-induced NCEs and TMIEs find it. That means half the time, there is no support for these effects. So what do we take from that? 5/10

There is also significant bias toward terrestrial systems, birds and mammals, and nonlethal human impacts in the studies that test for human-induced NCEs and TMIEs. 4/10

Very few papers look beyond phenotypic changes when measuring the effects of human-induced fear. Those that do almost exclusively look at population effects (i.e. non-consumptive effects; NCE) rather than community effects (i.e. trait-mediated indirect effects; TMIE) and reproductive metrics. 3/10

Phenotypic responses (i.e. behavior and physiology) to human-induced fear include changes in foraging, provisioning, activity, habitat use, and vigilance. Animals may respond fearfully to humans whether there is a real lethal threat (e.g. hunters) or not (e.g. hikers). 2/10

New paper: the risk disturbance literature is full of examples of humans changing animal behavior, but how often do these changes affect populations or communities? TLDR it’s much muddier than you might expect. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10....