Abstract
Human disturbances are modifying animal behavior in ecosystems worldwide, with the potential to reshape species interactions. For instance, human-induced shifts in diel activity may disrupt the alignment of daily activity patterns between interacting species and destabilize temporal niche partitioning. To test this hypothesis, we leverage a global meta-analysis on the effects of human disturbance on diel activity and overlap of 480 mammalian predator–prey and intraguild predator dyads from 57 studies. We demonstrate that human disturbance has no overall effect on temporal overlap. Instead, the body mass ratios between dominant species and subordinate species shape the influence of human disturbance. When subordinates are larger than dominant species, humans compress the temporal niche (i.e., higher diel overlap), but when dominant species are larger than subordinate species, humans expand the temporal niche (i.e., lower diel overlap). These results suggest that larger bodied mammals “lose” the temporal predator–prey response race under human disturbance, with large predators experiencing less overlap with their prey, and large prey facing more overlap with their predators. As the human footprint expands globally, we can expect continued alterations to the animal temporal niche, with consequences for species interactions, population persistence, community structure, and evolutionary dynamics.
Data availability
All data generated in this study are provided in the Supplementary Information. Additionally, all data used in this study are available in the Zenodo (https://zenodo.org/records/17546952) and Github (https://eamonn-wooster.github.io/Disturbed_predator_prey/).
Code availability
Code generated in this study are provided in the Supplementary Information. Code used in this study are available in the Zenodo (https://zenodo.org/records/17546952) and Github (https://eamonn-wooster.github.io/Disturbed_predator_prey/).
References
Sandom, C., Faurby, S., Sandel, B. & Svenning, J.-C. Global late Quaternary megafauna extinctions linked to humans, not climate change. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 281, 20133254 (2014).
Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R. & Dirzo, R. Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 114, E6089–E6096 (2017).
Dirzo, R. et al. Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science 345, 401–406 (2014).
Clinchy, M. et al. Fear of the human “super predator” far exceeds the fear of large carnivores in a model mesocarnivore. Behav. Ecol. 27, 1826–1832 (2016).
Suraci, J. P., Clinchy, M., Dill, L. M., Roberts, D. & Zanette, L. Y. Fear of large carnivores causes a trophic cascade. Nat. Commun. 7, 1–7 (2016).
Suraci, J. P., Clinchy, M., Zanette, L. Y. & Wilmers, C. C. Fear of humans as apex predators has landscape-scale impacts from mountain lions to mice. Ecol. Lett. 22, 1578–1586 (2019).
Darimont, C. T., Fox, C. H., Bryan, H. M. & Reimchen, T. E. The unique ecology of human predators. Science 349, 858–860 (2015).
Darimont, C. T. et al. Humanity’s diverse predatory niche and its ecological consequences. Commun. Biol. 6, 609 (2023).
Gaynor, K. M., Hojnowski, C. E., Carter, N. H. & Brashares, J. S. The influence of human disturbance on wildlife nocturnality. Science 360, 1232–1235 (2018).
Smith, J. A. et al. Population and community consequences of perceived risk from humans in wildlife. Ecol. Lett. 27, e14456 (2024).
Ripple, W. J. et al. Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science 343, 1241484 (2014).
Kronfeld-Schor, N. & Dayan, T. Partitioning of time as an ecological resource. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 34, 153–181 (2003).
Gilbert, N. A. et al. Daily activity timing in the Anthropocene. Trends Ecol. Evol. 38, 324–336 (2022).
Van Scoyoc, A., Smith, J. A., Gaynor, K. M., Barker, K. & Brashares, J. S. The influence of human activity on predator–prey spatiotemporal overlap. J. Anim. Ecol. 92, 1124–1134 (2023).
Gilbert, N. A., Stenglein, J. L., Pauli, J. N. & Zuckerberg, B. Human disturbance compresses the spatiotemporal niche. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2206339119 (2022).
Barrueto, M., Ford, A. T. & Clevenger, A. P. Anthropogenic effects on activity patterns of wildlife at crossing structures. Ecosphere 5, 1–19 (2014).
Zanon Martinez, J. I., Seoane, J., Kelly, M. J., Sarasola, J. H. & Travaini, A. Assessing carnivore spatial co-occurrence and temporal overlap in the face of human interference in a semiarid forest. Ecol. Appl. 32, e02482 (2022).
Wereszczuk, A. & Zalewski, A. COVID-19 lockdown splits activity peaks of two mesopredators and potentially relaxes interspecific competition in rural habitat. Hystrix 33, 166 (2022).
Viana, D. F. P. et al. Does cattle ranching drive activity patterns of jaguar (Panthera onca) and puma (Puma concolor) in the Brazilian Pantanal? Rev. Mex. Biodivers. 93, (2022).
Kays, R. et al. Does hunting or hiking affect wildlife communities in protected areas? J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 242–252 (2017).
Díaz-Ruiz, F., Caro, J., Delibes-Mateos, M., Arroyo, B. & Ferreras, P. Drivers of red fox (Vulpes vulpes) daily activity: prey availability, human disturbance or habitat structure? J. Zool. 298, 128–138 (2016).
Monette, V. D., Kelly, M. J. & Buchholz, R. Human disturbance and the activity patterns and temporal overlap of tapirs and jaguars in reserves of NW Belize. Biotropica 52, 1262–1274 (2020).
Moll, R. J. et al. Humans and urban development mediate the sympatry of competing carnivores. Urban Ecosyst. 21, 765–778 (2018).
Baker, A. D. & Leberg, P. L. Impacts of human recreation on carnivores in protected areas. PLoS ONE 13, e0195436 (2018).
Lewis, J. S., Bailey, L. L., VandeWoude, S. & Crooks, K. R. Interspecific interactions between wild felids vary across scales and levels of urbanization. Ecol. Evol. 5, 5946–5961 (2015).
Figel, J. J., Botero-Cañola, S., Sánchez-Londoño, J. D. & Racero-Casarrubia, J. Jaguars and pumas exhibit distinct spatiotemporal responses to human disturbances in Colombia’s most imperiled ecoregion. J. Mammal. 102, 333–345 (2021).
Rayan, D. M. & Linkie, M. Managing conservation flagship species in competition: tiger, leopard and dhole in Malaysia. Biol. Conserv. 204, 360–366 (2016).
Wang, Y., Allen, M. L. & Wilmers, C. C. Mesopredator spatial and temporal responses to large predators and human development in the Santa Cruz Mountains of California. Biol. Conserv. 190, 23–33 (2015).
Smith, Y. C. E., Smith, D. A. E., Ramesh, T. & Downs, C. T. Novel predators and anthropogenic disturbance influence spatio-temporal distribution of forest antelope species. Behav. Process. 159, 9–22 (2019).
Dawson, S. J. et al. Peak hour in the bush: linear anthropogenic clearings funnel predator and prey species. Austral Ecol. 43, 159–171 (2018).
Frey, S., Tejero, D., Baillie-David, K., Burton, A. C., Fisher, J. T. Predator control alters wolf interactions with prey and competitor species over the diel cycle. Oikos https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.08821 (2022).
Wooster, E. I. F. et al. Predator protection dampens the landscape of fear. Oikos https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.09059 (2022).
Wilkinson, C. E., McInturff, A., Kelly, M. & Brashares, J. S. Quantifying wildlife responses to conservation fencing in East Africa. Biol. Conserv. 256, 109071 (2021).
Xiao, W. et al. Relationships between humans and ungulate prey shape Amur tiger occurrence in a core protected area along the Sino-Russian border. Ecol. Evol. 8, 11677–11693 (2018).
Gálvez, N., Meniconi, P., Infante, J. & Bonacic, C. Response of mesocarnivores to anthropogenic landscape intensification: activity patterns and guild temporal interactions. J. Mammal. 102, 1149–1164 (2021).
Khan, P., Eliuk, L., Frey, S., Bone, C. & Fisher, J. T. Shifts in diel activity of Rocky Mountain mammal communities in response to anthropogenic disturbance and sympatric invasive white-tailed deer. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 41, e02355 (2023).
Reilly, M., Tobler, M. W., Sonderegger, D. & Beier, P. Spatial and temporal response of wildlife to recreational activities in the San Francisco Bay ecoregion. Biol. Conserv. 207, 117–126 (2017).
Sogbohossou, E. A., Kassa, B. D., Waltert, M. & Khorozyan, I. Spatio-temporal niche partitioning between the African lion (Panthera leo leo) and spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta) in western African savannas. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 64, 1–8 (2018).
Green, A. M., Barnick, K. A., Pendergast, M. E. & Şekercioğlu, ÇH. Species differences in temporal response to urbanization alters predator-prey and human overlap in northern Utah. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 36, e02127 (2022).
Searle, C. E. et al. Temporal partitioning and spatiotemporal avoidance among large carnivores in a human-impacted African landscape. PLoS ONE 16, e0256876 (2021).
Malhotra, R., Lima, S. & Harris, N. C. Temporal refuges of a subordinate carnivore vary across rural–urban gradient. Ecol. Evol. 12, e9310 (2022).
Nix, J. H., Howell, R. G., Hall, L. K. & McMillan, B. R. The influence of periodic increases of human activity on crepuscular and nocturnal mammals: testing the weekend effect. Behav. Process. 146, 16–21 (2018).
Murphy, A., Diefenbach, D. R., Ternent, M., Lovallo, M. & Miller, D. Threading the needle: how humans influence predator-prey spatiotemporal interactions in a multiple-predator system. J. Anim. Ecol. 90, 2377–2390 (2021).
Bonsen, G. T. et al. Tolerance of wolves shapes desert canid communities in the Middle East. Global Ecol. Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2022.e02139 (2022).
Gallo, T., Fidino, M., Lehrer, E. W. & Magle, S. Urbanization alters predator-avoidance behaviours. J. Anim. Ecol. 88, 793–803 (2019).
Rich, L. N., Miller, D. A., Robinson, H. S., McNutt, J. W. & Kelly, M. J. Using camera trapping and hierarchical occupancy modelling to evaluate the spatial ecology of an African mammal community. J. Appl. Ecol. 53, 1225–1235 (2016).
Caldwell, M. R. & Klip, J. M. K. Wildlife interactions within highway underpasses. J. Wildl. Manag. 84, 227–236 (2020).
Lee, S. X. T., Amir, Z., Moore, J. H., Gaynor, K. M. & Luskin, M. S. Effects of human disturbances on wildlife behaviour and consequences for predator-prey overlap in Southeast Asia. Nat. Commun. 15, 1521 (2024).
Mills, K. L. & Harris, N. C. Humans disrupt access to prey for large African carnivores. Elife 9, e60690 (2020).
Latafat, K., Sadhu, A., Qureshi, Q. & Jhala, Y. V. Abundance and activity of carnivores in two protected areas of semi-arid western India with varying top predator density and human impacts. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 69, 15 (2023).
Lundgren, E. J. et al. A novel trophic cascade between cougars and feral donkeys shapes desert wetlands. J. Anim. Ecol. 91, 2348–2357 (2022).
Sytsma, M. L., Lewis, T., Gardner, B. & Prugh, L. R. Low levels of outdoor recreation alter wildlife behaviour. People Nat. 4, 1547–1559 (2022).
Abernathy, H. et al. Rain, recreation and risk: Human activity and ecological disturbance create seasonal risk landscapes for the prey of an ambush predator. J. Anim. Ecol. 92, 1840–1855 (2023).
Rees, M. W. et al. Dynamic shifts in predator diel activity patterns across landscapes and threat levels. Oikos 2024, e09849 (2024).
Procko, M., Naidoo, R., LeMay, V. & Burton, A. C. Human impacts on mammals in and around a protected area before, during, and after COVID-19 lockdowns. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 4, e12743 (2022).
Parsons, A. W. et al. The effect of urbanization on spatiotemporal interactions between gray foxes and coyotes. Ecosphere 13, e3993 (2022).
Louvrier, J. L. et al. Spatiotemporal interactions of a novel mesocarnivore community in an urban environment before and during SARS-CoV-2 lockdown. J. Anim. Ecol. 91, 367–380 (2022).
Watabe, R. & Saito, M. U. Effects of vehicle-passing frequency on forest roads on the activity patterns of carnivores. Landsc. Ecol. Eng. 17, 225–231 (2021).
Hasselerharm, C. D. Combining Livestock Shepherding and Wildlife Protection to Restore Rangeland Ecosystems. (University of Technology Sydney, 2018).
Bassing, S. B., Ho, C. & Gardner, B. Anthropogenic activities influence spatiotemporal patterns of predator-prey interactions. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 53, e03017 (2024).
Xu, K. et al. Effects of livestock grazing on spatiotemporal interactions between snow leopards and ungulate prey. Integr. Zool. 20, 1012–1027 (2024).
Pérez-Flores, J. et al. The effects of the decline in tourism during the COVID-19 lockdown on the wild mammal community in forest surrounding a theme park on the Mexican Caribbean. J. Nat. Conserv. 81, 126693 (2024).
Tsunoda, H. et al. Anthropogenic activities facilitate temporal overlaps and spatial partitions among sympatric canids in a human-modified landscape of Bulgaria. Food Webs 39, e00344 (2024).
McTigue, L. E. et al. Does daily activity overlap of seven mesocarnivores vary based on human development? Plos ONE 19, e0288477 (2024).
Cervantes, A. M. et al. Carnivore coexistence in Chicago: niche partitioning of coyotes and red foxes. Urban Ecosyst. 26, 1293–1307 (2023).
Cowan, M. et al. Mining reshapes animal communities at a local and landscape-scale. Biol. Conserv. 308, 111252 (2025).
Wallach, A. D. et al. Savviness of prey to introduced predators. Conserv. Biol. 37, e14012 (2022).
Gravel, D., Poisot, T., Albouy, C., Velez, L. & Mouillot, D. Inferring food web structure from predator–prey body size relationships. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 1083–1090 (2013).
Fricke, E. C. et al. Collapse of terrestrial mammal food webs since the Late Pleistocene. Science 377, 1008–1011 (2022).
Sih, A. The behavioral response race between predator and prey. Am. Nat. 123, 143–150 (1984).
Wu, Y., Wang, H., Wang, H. & Feng, J. Arms race of temporal partitioning between carnivorous and herbivorous mammals. Sci. Rep. 8, 1713 (2018).
Burton, A. C. et al. Mammal responses to global changes in human activity vary by trophic group and landscape. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 8, 924–935 (2024).
Salvatori, M. et al. Body mass mediates spatio-temporal responses of mammals to human frequentation across Italian protected areas. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 291, 20232874 (2024).
Gaynor, K. M. et al. The human shield hypothesis: does predator avoidance of humans create refuges for prey? Ecol. Lett. 28, e70138 (2025).
Suraci, J. P. et al. Beyond spatial overlap: harnessing new technologies to resolve the complexities of predator–prey interactions. Oikos https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.09004 (2022).
Lima, S. L. & Dill, L. M. Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can. J. Zool. 68, 619–640 (1990).
Clark, K. L., Ruiz, G. M. & Hines, A. H. Diel variation in predator abundance, predation risk and prey distribution in shallow-water estuarine habitats. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 287, 37–55 (2003).
Vander Vennen, L. M. et al. Diel movement patterns influence daily variation in wolf kill rates on moose. Func. Ecol. 30, 1568–1573 (2016).
Shiratsuru, S. et al. When death comes: linking predator–prey activity patterns to timing of mortality to understand predation risk. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 290, 20230661 (2023).
Tuomainen, U. & Candolin, U. Behavioural responses to human-induced environmental change. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 86, 640–657 (2011).
Pease, B. S. & Gilbert, N. A. Light pollution prolongs avian activity. Science 389, 818–821 (2025).
Frey, S., Volpe, J., Heim, N., Paczkowski, J. & Fisher, J. Move to nocturnality not a universal trend in carnivore species on disturbed landscapes. Oikos 129, 1128–1140 (2020).
Devarajan, K. et al. When the wild things are: defining mammalian diel activity and plasticity. Sci. Adv. 11, eado3843 (2025).
Guiden, P. W., Bartel, S. L., Byer, N. W., Shipley, A. A. & Orrock, J. L. Predator–prey interactions in the Anthropocene: reconciling multiple aspects of novelty. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 616–627 (2019).
Prugh, L. R. Species interactions in the Anthropocene. J. Anim. Ecol. 92, 1110–1112 (2023).
Wooster, E. I. F. et al. Australia’s recently established predators restore complexity to food webs simplified by extinction. Curr. Biol. 34, 5164–5172 (2024).
Svenning, J.-C., Buitenwerf, R. & Le Roux, E. Trophic rewilding as a restoration approach under emerging novel biosphere conditions. Curr. Biol. 34, R435–R451 (2024).
Kerr, M. R. et al. Widespread ecological novelty across the terrestrial biosphere. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 9, 589–598 (2025).
Wilson, M. W. et al. Ecological impacts of human-induced animal behaviour change. Ecol. Lett. 23, 1522–1536 (2020).
Wooster, E. I. F. et al. Animal cognition and culture mediate predator–prey interactions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 39, 52–64 (2023).
Gusenbauer, M. & Haddaway, N. R. Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Res. Synth. Methods 11, 181–217 (2020).
Sévêque, A., Gentle, L. K., López-Bao, J. V., Yarnell, R. W. & Uzal, A. Human disturbance has contrasting effects on niche partitioning within carnivore communities. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 95, 1689–1705 (2020).
Nakagawa, S. et al. Method Reporting with Initials for Transparency (MeRIT) promotes more granularity and accountability for author contributions. Nat. Commun. 14, 1788 (2023).
van de Schoot, R. et al. An open source machine learning framework for efficient and transparent systematic reviews. Nat. Mach. Intell. 3, 125–133 (2021).
Caron, D., Maiorano, L., Thuiller, W. & Pollock, L. J. Addressing the Eltonian shortfall with trait-based interaction models. Ecol. Lett. 25, 889–899 (2022).
Botella, C. et al. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you: Meta food webs help in the face of the Eltonian shortfall. Glob. Change Biol. 30, 1–2 (2024).
Middleton, O., Svensson, H., Scharlemann, J. P. W., Faurby, S. & Sandom, C. CarniDIET 1.0: a database of terrestrial carnivorous mammal diets. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 30, 1175–1182 (2021).
Poelen, J. H., Simons, J. D. & Mungall, C. J. Global biotic interactions: an open infrastructure to share and analyze species-interaction datasets. Ecol. Inform. 24, 148–159 (2014).
Brose, U. et al. Consumer–resource body-size relationships in natural food webs. Ecology 87, 2411–2417 (2006).
Meredith, M., Ridout, M. S. The overlap package. (2014).
R Core Team. (Vienna, Austria, 2018).
Thieurmel, B., Elmarhraoui, A., Thieurmel, M. B. Package ‘suncalc’. R package version 0.5 (2019).
Cove, M. V. et al. (Wiley Online Library, 2021).
Faurby, S. et al. PHYLACINE 1.2: the phylogenetic atlas of mammal macroecology. Ecology 99, 2626 (2018).
Wooster, E. et al. Functional traits of the world’s late quaternary terrestrial mammalian predators. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13909 (2024).
Wilman, H. et al. EltonTraits 1.0: species-level foraging attributes of the world’s birds and mammals. Ecology 95, 2027–2027 (2014).
Ver Hoef, J. M. Who invented the delta method? Am. Stat. 66, 124–127 (2012).
Viechtbauer, W., Viechtbauer, M. W. Package ‘metafor’. The Comprehensive R Archive Network. Package ‘metafor’. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/metafor/metafor.pdf (2015).
Nakagawa, S., Yang, Y., Macartney, E. L., Spake, R. & Lagisz, M. Quantitative evidence synthesis: a practical guide on meta-analysis, meta-regression, and publication bias tests for environmental sciences. Environ. Evid. 12, 8 (2023).
Michonneau, F., Brown, J. W. & Winter, D. J. rotl: an R package to interact with the Open Tree of Life data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 1476–1481 (2016).
Mathot, K. J. et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of unimodal and multimodal predation risk assessment in birds. Nat. Commun. 15, 4240 (2024).
Noble, D. W., Lagisz, M., O’dea, R. E., Nakagawa, S. (Wiley Online Library, 2017).
Nakagawa, S. & Santos, E. S. Methodological issues and advances in biological meta-analysis. Evolut. Ecol. 26, 1253–1274 (2012).
Nakagawa, S. et al. orchaRd 2.0: An R Package for Visualising Meta-analyses with Orchard Plots. (2023).
Nakagawa, S. et al. The orchard plot: cultivating a forest plot for use in ecology, evolution, and beyond. Res. Synth. Methods 12, 4–12 (2021).
Wickham, H. ggplot2. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. 3, 180–185 (2011).
Nakagawa, S. et al. Methods for testing publication bias in ecological and evolutionary meta-analyses. Methods Ecol. Evol. 13, 4–21 (2022).
O’Dea, R. E. et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology: a PRISMA extension. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 96, 1695–1722 (2021).
Acknowledgments
We thank all authors who collected and shared their field data and those in particular who were generous with their time in helping us understand their data. E.I.F.W. was supported by a Gulbali DECRA Track Postdoctoral Fellowship while leading this paper. We thank Arian Wallach, Chris Jolly and David Watson for feedback on an earlier version of this paper. We thank Matthew Luskin for help identifying South-East Asian pairings. We are grateful to Laura Prugh and two anonymous reviewers whose detailed and through reviews significantly improved the paper. We are thankful to Springer Nature for a full publishing fee waiver.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: E.I.F.W., K.M.G., and D.G.N. Investigation: E.I.F.W., M.A.C., E.C.F., A.J.R.C, A.S.K.F., K.L.G., J.R.G., G.D.L., T.M., A.S., K.C.W., N.S.W., and D.W. Methodology: E.I.F.W., S.N., E.J.L., K.M.G., E.C.F., and D.G.N. Data Curation: E.I.F.W., S.N., E.J.L., K.M.G., D.G.N., and E.C.F. Formal analysis: E.I.F.W., S.N., E.J.L., K.M.G., D.G.N., and E.C.F., Software: E.I.F.W., S.N., and E.J.L. Visualization: E.I.F.W., K.M.G., E.J.L., S.N., and D.G.N. Writing—original draft: E.I.F.W. Writing—review and editing: E.I.F.W., K.M.G., E.J.L., S.N., D.G.N., M.A.C., A.J.R.C, A.S.K.F., K.L.G., J.R.G., G.D.L., T.M., A.S., K.C.W., N.S.W., and D.W. Alphabetical ordering of middle authors (by last name) indicates equal contribution.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Communications thanks Laura Prugh and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. A peer review file is available.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Description of Additional Supplementary Files
Supplementary Data 1
Supplementary Data 2
Supplementary Data 3
Supplementary Data 4
Supplementary Data 5
Supplementary Data 6
Supplementary Code 1
Supplementary Code 2
Supplementary Code 3
Reporting Summary
Transparent Peer Review file
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Reprints and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wooster, E.I.F., Lundgren, E.J., Nimmo, D.G. et al. Predator-prey temporal niche partitioning under human disturbance: a meta-analysis.
Nat Commun (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-69113-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-69113-9
Source: Ecology - nature.com
