Open Collections

Gaynor, Kaitlyn M.; Hayes, Forest P.; Manlove, Kezia; Galloway, Nathan; Benson, John F.; Cherry, Michael; Epps, Clinton W.; Fletcher Jr., Robert J.; Orrock, John; Smith, Justine A.; Aiello, Christina; Belant, Jerrod L.; Berger, Joel; Biel, Mark; Bright, Jill; Bump, Joseph; Burchett, Michael; Butler, Carson; Carlson, Jennifer; Cole, Eric K.; Darby, Neal; DuGutis, Erin; Dewey, Sarah; Figura, Pete; Gable, Tom; Gagnon, Jeff; Glass, Danielle M.; Green, Jennifer R.; Gunther, Kerry; Haroldson, Mark; Hersey, Kent; Holton, Brandon; Homkes, Austin; Hoy, Sarah R.; Hughson, Debra; Joly, Kyle; Leahy, Ryan; Lee-Roney, Caitlin; Lester, Rob; MacNulty, Dan; Magnuson, Michael; Martin, Daniel; Mazur, Rachel; Moore, Seth; Orning, Elizabeth K.; Patrick, Katie; Peterson, Rolf O.; Potvin, Lynette; Prentice, Paige R.; Riley, Seth P.D.; Romanski, Mark; Roug, Annette; Sikich, Jeff A.; Simpson, Nova; Sloan, William; Smith, Douglas W.; Sorum, Mathew; Sprague, Scott; Stahler, Daniel; Stephenson, John; Stephenson, Thomas R.; Stroud-Settles, Janice; van Manen, Frank; Vucetich, John A.; Wilmot, Kate; Windels, Steve; Wolf, Tiffany; Cross, Paul

<b>Abstract</b><br/>

Given the importance of protected areas for biodiversity, the growth of visitation to many areas has raised concerns about the effects of humans on wildlife. In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic led to temporary closure of national parks in the United States, offering a pseudonatural experiment to tease apart the effects of permanent infrastructure and transient human presence on animals. We compiled GPS tracking data from 229 individuals of 10 mammal species in 14 parks, and used third-order hierarchical Resource Selection Functions to evaluate the influence of the human footprint on animal space use in 2019 and 2020. Averaged across all parks and species, animals avoided the human footprint, whether the park was open or closed. However, while animals in remote areas showed consistent avoidance, on average those in more developed areas switched from avoidance to selection when protected areas were closed. Findings varied across species: some responded consistently negatively to the footprint (wolves, mountain goats), some positively (mule deer, red fox), and others had a strong exposure-mediated response (elk, mountain lion). Furthermore, some species responded more strongly to the park closure (black bear, moose). This study advances our understanding of complex interactions between recreation and wildlife in protected areas.</p>

While we do not share raw location data due to the sensitivity of animal locations, we provide complete information on the format of data files, intermediate data products, and the scripts necessary to reproduce analyses.</p>

Dataset

2025-06-16

CC0 1.0

https://doi.org/10.5683/SP3/DLQ7NZ

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council; National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis; National Park Service; Arizona Game and Fish Department; California Department of Fish and Wildlife; Detroit Zoological Society; Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration; Grand Canyon Conservancy; Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa; Grand Teton Association; Grand Teton National Park Foundation; Helicopter Wildlife Services; National Parks of Lake Superior Foundation; U.S. National Science Foundation; Michigan Department of Natural Resources; Minnesota Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund; Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks; National Parks of Lake Superior Foundation; Nevada Department of Transportation; Nevada Department of Wildlife; Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry; Safari Club International; Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep Foundation; Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife; University of Minnesota; National Institute of Food and Agriculture; United States Department of Agriculture; Utah Division of Wildlife Resources; Utah Wild Sheep Foundation; Wyoming Game and Fish Department; Yellowstone Forever; Yosemite Conservancy; Zion Forever Project

Dataverse