Skip to main content

Human activities reshape the spatial overlap between North Chinese leopard and its wild ungulate prey

Abstract

Background

Rapidly expanding human activities have profoundly changed the habitat use of both large carnivores and their prey, but whether and how human activities affect the interactions between them has received relatively less attention. In this study, we conducted a systematically designed camera-trapping survey on an endangered large carnivore (North Chinese leopard Panthera pardus japonensis) and its wild ungulate prey (Siberian roe deer Capreolus pygargus and wild boar Sus scrofa) in the Taihang Mountains of central North China. Using conditional two-species occupancy model based on data derived from the extensive sampling effort (15,654 camera-days at 102 camera sites), we examined the relationship of spatial use between leopards and each prey species under the effects of human presence, free-ranging cattle, roads and settlements.

Results

Humans and cattle had contrasting effects on the relationship of spatial use between leopard and roe deer, with higher and lower spatial segregation between them at human and cattle-frequented sites, respectively. Roads might create a shelter for wild boar from leopard predation, with less spatial segregation between them at sites close to the roads.

Conclusions

Our findings demonstrate that human activities are reshaping the spatial overlap between large carnivores and their prey, and have non-equivalent effects among different types of human activity. Such effects may further alter the strength of interspecific interactions between predator and prey, with far-reaching influences on the community and ecosystem that require more research.

Background

As human activities rapidly expand, available habitats free-from disturbance are becoming more limited for wildlife. As a result, an increasing number of wild animals have to share habitat with humans [1, 2], with shifts in habitat use as a common form of behavioral adaption for wildlife inhabiting human-dominated landscapes [3, 4]. Such shifts can facilitate human-wildlife co-existence by allowing wildlife to avoid landscape features where human activities are concentrated (e.g., roads, settlements) or to take advantage of human subsidies (e.g., food waste, agriculture resources). However, when different species differ in their responses to human activities, such shifts may further change their spatial overlap, and also the strength of interspecific interactions [5, 6]. Interactions between predator and prey and the resulting anti-predator behaviors in prey species are crucial in shaping community structures and ecosystem functions [7]. Human effects on the interactions between predators and prey can therefore have far-reaching effects on the community and ecosystem through multiple pathways, such as trophic cascades and suppression of dominant prey [8,9,10].

By changing the habitat use of both predator and prey, human activities can either increase or decrease the spatial overlap between both parties, thus changing their probability of encounter [11]. Previous studies suggest that when predator and prey are mutually avoiding or attracted by human activities, the probability of predator–prey encounters increases, which potentially skews the behavioral response race in favor of the predator [12, 13]. On the contrary, when predator and prey exhibit opposite responses to human activities, the probability of predator–prey encounters decreases, which potentially skews the behavioral response race in favor of prey [14, 15]. Both human-induced increase and decrease in spatial overlap between predator and prey have been documented in various ecosystems, such as the well-known “human trap” and “human shelter” effects. For example, Fleming and Bateman summarized examples of predators that benefit from anthropogenic environments to increase their hunting success [16]. In North America, the moose (Alces alces) were found to use paved roads to shield against traffic-averse brown bears (Ursus arctos) [17].

However, different types of human activity can have non-equivalent or even opposite effects on wildlife habitat use [18,19,20], which are often overlooked in previous studies examining human effects on predator–prey interactions. Humans can kill wildlife more efficiently than predators in natural ecosystems and are considered a “super-predator” [21]. Many animals therefore show a strong fear of human presence, which often leads to behavioral avoidance [22, 23]. Compared to mere presence of humans, sustained, high-intensity disturbance associated with long-term land-use change, such as human infrastructures, may have a more complex effect on wildlife, with ability to simultaneously extirpate wildlife by degrading natural habitats and benefit wildlife by offering human subsidies [19]. Both types of disturbance can occur simultaneously in the landscape, and some animals may avoid direct encounters with humans but at the same time take advantage of subsidies from human infrastructure [23, 24]. Similarly, human effects on predator–prey interactions may also differ with type of human activity. For example, the hypothesis of hunting-mediated predation facilitation suggested that avoidance of human hunters may constrain habitat use of prey, leaving prey with less refuge from natural predators [25, 26], while human infrastructure may create shelters with less predation risk for prey [27]. Disentangling the concurrent effect of multiple types of human activity is therefore crucial for thoroughly understanding human effects on predator–prey interactions and the following ecological consequences.

North China is the political and cultural center of China, with intensive human activities including urbanization, road traffic and agriculture [28]. The endangered North Chinese leopard (Panthera pardus japonensis) is the only large carnivore inhabiting the human-disturbed landscapes in Taihang Mountains of central North China [29,30,31]. Habitat use of both North Chinese leopard and its major wild prey (Siberian roe deer Capreolus pygargus and wild boar Sus scrofa) are affected by human activities, with effects differing with the type of human activity and species [32, 33]. However, whether and how human activities affect the spatial overlap between North Chinese leopard and its prey is still unknown.

Here, to determine the effects of different types of human activities on the predator–prey interactions, we conducted a camera-trapping survey in Taihang Mountains of central North China. With an extensive dataset collected from 102 camera sites, we built two-species occupancy models to examine (1) whether the occurrence of roe deer and wild boar were dependent on the presence of North Chinese leopard, and (2) whether and how four types of human activity (human presence, free-ranging cattle, road and settlement) affected the relationship of spatial use between North Chinese leopard and its wild prey. We hypothesized that co-occurrence of human and North Chinese leopard at the same site might amplify the spatial avoidance of the two ungulates, as both ungulates showed fearful responses (i.e., increased flight probability and decreased activity) to human sounds in our study area [34]. On the contrary, roads and settlements might create human shelter for the two ungulates as previous studies showed that North Chinese leopard tended to avoid habitats near human infrastructures in our study area, while the two ungulates did not [33].

Methods

Study system

We conducted this study in Heshun County of Shanxi Province (113° 15′–113° 25′ E, 37° 15′ –37° 22′ N), which is located in the central Taihang Mountains of North China. The terrain is characterized by rolling hills, with an elevation ranging from 1300 to 1700 m. This area had a temperate continental climate, with an average annual temperature of 7.5 °C and an average annual precipitation of 600 mm. The majority of precipitation happens during the summer months of July and August [35]. The main vegetation type is secondary conifer-deciduous mixed forest, dominated by pine (Pinus tabuliformis), oak (Quercus wutaishanica), aspen (Populus davidiana), and birch (Betula platyphylla). North Chinese leopard is the only large carnivore in the study area with Siberian roe deer and wild boar as its main wild prey [36]. The habitat use of leopard, roe deer and wild boar are influenced by multiple types of human activity. Human infrastructures mainly include paved roads and human settlements (Fig. 1), while local residents often use the forests for collecting of non-timber resources (e.g., mushroom, medicine herb and fuel wood) and leave their cattle roaming freely during the day.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Location of the study area in China (A), and the camera sites (n = 102) within the study area (B)

Camera-trapping survey

To determine the effects of human activities on spatial relationships between leopards and their prey, we conducted a systematically designed camera-trapping survey from September 2022 to April 2023 (i.e., the non-growing season) at sites with different intensities of human activities. With no prior knowledge about the presence of humans and cattle, we set cameras along a gradient of distance to the nearest human infrastructure. Specifically, we set all cameras at trails along gullies or ridges starting from roads or settlements. Cameras were separated from each other by at least 500 m (mean = 7.1 km, ranging from 507 to 15.5 km) to ensure the detection probabilities of animals was independent of each other at different camera sites [37]. At each camera site, one motion-triggered camera (CANGLU S1, Qingdao Yequ Nature Technology Co., Ltd., Qingdao, China) was attached to trees at a height of 0.3–0.9 m above the ground along the trail to maximum the detection of the target species. No bait or lures were used during the survey. The cameras were set to active all day, with a 3-min delay between consecutive triggers. The camera took 3 consecutive photos and a 10-s video upon each trigger. We inspected the cameras every 3 months to replace batteries and to retrieve the data. Overall, 102 camera sites were surveyed for an extensive sampling effort of 15,654 camera-days (mean = 153 per site, standard deviation = 18), with distance to the nearest roads or settlements ranging from 305 to 4142 m.

Data analysis

Intensity of human activities

For each camera site, we measured the intensity of four types of human activity, including the relative abundance index (RAI) of human (RH) and cattle (RC), and the distance to the nearest settlement (DS) and road (DR). We considered consecutive images of the same species (i.e., cattle or human) captured within 30 min at the same camera site as one independent detection [38]. The frequency of independent detections, indicating whether a site was less or more likely to be visited by a particular species, can be used as a measure of intensity of use [33, 39]. Therefore, we used the relative abundance index (RAI, average number of independent detections per 100 camera-days) [38] of human and cattle, respectively, at each site to measure their intensity of habitat use. We calculated the Euclidean distance from each camera site to the nearest settlement and paved road, respectively, using ArcMap 10.8. Since the distributions of RH and RC were right-skewed, we log-transformed these two covariates. We also checked all covariates for potential collinearity using the Pearson correlation test. There was no correlation between any covariates (Pearson correlation index < 0.6) [40]. We applied a standardized scale (\(\overline{x}\) = 0 and SD = 1) to all covariates to facilitate both model convergence and comparison between their coefficient estimations.

Two-species occupancy model

We used a conditional two-species occupancy model to examine (1) whether the detection probability of roe deer and wild boar was conditional on leopard, and (2) whether and how human activities affected the spatial relationship between leopard and the two prey species. We built two-species occupancy models following the framework presented by Richmond et al. (2010) [41]. As originally formulated, the occupancy modelling developed by MacKenzie et al. (2002) [42] depends on an assumption that an individual using a given camera site will always be present and available for sampling. However, such assumption can be violated in camera-trapping surveys as the area that a camera can sample is often smaller than the home ranges of the study species [43, 44]. Therefore, the occupancy (\(\psi\)) and detection probability (\(p\)) are often interpreted as proxies for the probability of occurrence (i.e., whether a given species occurred at a site during sampling) and intensity of use (i.e., the overall activity of a species at a given site) respectively [19]. The co-occupancy model developed by Richmond et al. (2010) [41] further assumes that species A is dominant and species B is subordinate, and the occupancy and detection probability of species B could be conditional on the occupancy and detection status of species A (see Table 1 for detailed descriptions of the parameters used in the two-species occupancy model).

Table 1 Descriptions of the parameters used in the two-species occupancy model proposed by Richmond et al. (2010) [41]

In this study, we assumed that the North Chinese leopard is the dominant species (i.e., species A), while ungulate prey (i.e., roe deer and wild boar) are subordinate (i.e., species B). We noticed that the naïve occupancy, defined as the proportion of camera sites where a species was detected at least once during the survey without accounting for the imperfect detection [45], was 0.92 for roe deer and 0.93 for wild boar in this study area (Table 2). When accounting for the imperfect detection, this suggested that the probability of occurrence must be 1 for at least 92% and 93% of the camera sites for roe deer and wild boar, respectively, and were unlikely to be affected by leopards. Therefore, for each species pair (i.e., leopard-roe deer, leopard-wild boar), we compared the performance of the conditional two-species occupancy model under the following four hypotheses to examine whether the intensity of use of roe deer and wild boar was affected by leopards:

  1. 1.

    Detection probability of species B was independent of species A (i.e., \(p^{{\text{B}}} = r^{{{\text{Ba}}}} = r^{{{\text{BA}}}}\));

  2. 2.

    Detection probability of species B was conditional on the presence of species A (i.e., \(p^{{\text{B}}} \ne r^{{{\text{Ba}}}} = r^{{{\text{BA}}}}\));

  3. 3.

    Detection probability of species B was conditional on the detection of species A (i.e., \(p^{{\text{B}}} = r^{{{\text{Ba}}}} \ne r^{{{\text{BA}}}}\));

  4. 4.

    Detection probability of species B was conditional on both the presence and detection of species A (i.e., \(p^{{\text{B}}} \ne r^{{{\text{Ba}}}} \ne r^{{{\text{BA}}}}\)).

We defined 10 consecutive camera days at each camera site as a survey occasion following previous study on the North Chinese leopard and sympatric mammals in North China [32, 46]. We recorded whether a given species was detected (1) or not (0) in each occasion. The detection of the North Chinese leopard during a certain occasion at a given site was drawn from the following Bernoulli distribution:

$$D^{{\text{A}}} { }\sim { }bern\left( {p^{{\text{A}}} \times z^{{\text{A}}} } \right),$$

Here, \(z^{{\text{A}}}\) is the actual occupancy state (1 or 0) of the North Chinese leopard at the given camera site, which is drawn from the following Bernoulli distribution:

$$z^{{\text{A}}} { }\sim { }bern\left( {\psi^{{\text{A}}} } \right)$$

If the detection probability of species B was assumed to be independent of species A, its detection (\(D^{{\text{B}}}\)) was modeled as

$$D^{{\text{B}}} { }\sim { }bern\left( {p^{{\text{B}}} \times z^{{\text{B}}} } \right)$$

If the detection probability of species B was conditional on the presence of species A, its detection was modeled as

$$D^{{\text{B}}} { }\sim { }bern\left( {p^{{\text{B}}} \times z^{{\text{B}}} \times \left( {1 - z^{{\text{A}}} } \right)} \right) + bern\left( {r^{{{\text{Ba}}}} \times z^{{\text{B}}} \times z^{{\text{A}}} } \right)$$

If the detection probability of species B was conditional on the detection of species A, its detection was modeled as

$$D^{{\text{B}}} { }\sim { }bern\left( {r^{{{\text{Ba}}}} \times z^{{\text{B}}} \times \left( {1 - D^{{\text{A}}} } \right)} \right) + bern\left( {r^{{{\text{BA}}}} \times z^{{\text{B}}} \times D^{{\text{A}}} } \right)$$

If the detection probability of species B was conditional on both the presence and detection of species A, its detection was modeled as

$$D^{{\text{B}}} { }\sim { }bern\left( {p^{{\text{B}}} \times z^{{\text{B}}} \times \left( {1 - z^{{\text{A}}} } \right)} \right) + bern\left( {r^{{{\text{Ba}}}} \times z^{{\text{B}}} \times z^{{\text{A}}} \times \left( {1 - D^{{\text{A}}} } \right)} \right) + bern\left( {r^{{{\text{BA}}}} \times z^{{\text{B}}} \times z^{{\text{A}}} \times D^{{\text{A}}} } \right),$$

where \(z^{{\text{B}}}\) is the actual occupancy state (1 or 0) of the ungulates at the given camera site, which is drawn from the following Bernoulli distribution:

$$z^{{\text{B}}} { }\sim { }bern\left( {\psi^{{\text{B}}} } \right)$$

We formulated the occupancy and detection probability using logistic regression models. Previous study suggested that human activities and other environmental variables had limited effect on the occupancy of the study species, especially for the two prey with naïve occupancy close to 1 [47, 48]. Therefore, we included the latitude and longitude of each camera site as the occupancy variables to address the possible spatial autocorrelation in occupancy probabilities. For the detection probability, we used DR, DS, RH and RC as detection variables to examine how human activities affected the intensity of habitat use of each species.

We analyzed the two-species occupancy models in a Bayesian framework using the JAGS language called through the package R2jags in R (v.4.2.2; R Core Team, 2022) [49]. For each model, we ran three Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) chains of 100,000 iterations each and made inference from 25,000 samples from the posterior distribution of each chain after burn in of 50,000 and a thinning rate of 5. We chose vague priors for all variables. We confirmed the convergence of MCMC chains by visually inspecting trace plots via the Gelman-Rubin statistic (\(\hat{R}\)) (all \(\hat{R}\) < 1.1, see Additional file 1: Table S1 and S2) [50].

We assessed the performance of the models based on different hypotheses by calculating the expected log pointwise predictive density (elpd) of each model through the package loo in R (v.4.2.2; R Core Team, 2022) [51]. A higher elpd value indicates better model performance, and a difference in elpd (\(\Delta {\text{elpd}}\)) of more than 4 between two models suggests a notable difference in their performance [52]. For models with similar performance, we considered the simpler one as the better one based on the principle of parsimony. We further used Moran’s I based on the site-sum residuals of the detection probability through the package spdep in R (v.4.2.2; R Core Team, 2022) to assure that there was no significant spatial autocorrelation in the models with best performances [53, 54].

We considered variables significant and marginally significant when the 95% and 85% Bayesian credible intervals (BCIs) of their coefficient estimates did not overlap with zero, respectively. When model comparison suggested that detection probabilities of roe deer and wild boar were conditional on the presence of leopard, we calculated how their relationship to each detection variable (i.e., the coefficient estimates) differed in the presence and absence of leopards. A statistically significant difference (i.e., 95% or 85% BCIs do not overlap with zero) indicates that prey respond differently to human activities in the presence and absence of the leopard. Besides, we predicted the detection probabilities for the roe deer and wild boar, respectively, using the mean values of each variable (DR, DS, RH and RC) across all camera sites to compare the differences in detection probabilities of the two species in the presence or absence of leopards in the study area.

Finally, we calculated the species interaction factor (SIF) proposed by Richmond et al. (2010) [41] to measure the relationships of spatial use between leopard and each of the two ungulates using the following formula:

$${\text{SIF}} = { }\frac{{r^{B} }}{{r^{B} \times \psi^{{\text{A}}} + p^{B} \times \left( {1 - \psi^{{\text{A}}} } \right)}}$$

If the habitat use of prey was independent of the leopard, then the SIF is equal to one, while an SIF less or greater than one indicates that species B is less or more likely to be detected with species A than expected under a hypothesis of independence, respectively.

Results

In total, we obtained data from 102 cameras with a total effort of 15,654 camera-days (Table 2). Leopards were detected at 40 camera sites with 106 independent detections and a RAI of 0.68. Roe deer, wild boar, human and cattle were detected at 92%, 93%, 100% and 55% of all camera sites with a RAI of 8.19, 7.77, 1.51, and 5.24, respectively (Fig. 2).

Table 2 Number of independent detections, relative abundance index and naïve occupancy of leopard, Siberian roe deer, wild boar, human and domestic cattle during the camera-trapping survey from September 2022 to April 2023 in Taihang Mountains, central North China
Fig. 2
figure 2

Photographs of leopard (A), Siberian roe deer (B), wild boar (C), human (D) and domestic cattle (E) captured at the same camera site during the camera-trapping survey from September 2022 to April 2023 in Taihang Mountains, central North China

Model comparison suggested that the detection probabilities of both roe deer and wild boar were conditional on the presence of leopard (Table 3), with detection probabilities of roe deer and wild boar significantly higher at leopard-present sites than leopard-absent sites (roe deer: difference = − 1.28, 95% BCI [− 2.38, − 0.556]; wild boar: difference = − 0.895, 95% BCI [− 1.89, − 0.234]) (Additional file 1: Table S1, S2, Fig. 3, Additional file 1: Fig. S1). The Moran’s I values for the site-sum residuals of the detection probabilities from the models with best performances for both roe deer (I = − 0.002, p-value = 0.289) and wild boar (I = − 0.023, p-value = 0.821) indicated that there was no statistically significant spatial autocorrelation.

Table 3 Rankings of conditional two-species models of Siberian roe deer and wild boar based on four hypotheses
Fig. 3
figure 3

Model-estimated detection probabilities of Siberian roe deer and wild boar with the presence and absence of leopard using mean values for DR and DS, RH and RC across all camera sites. Vertical lines extending above and below the boxes represent 95% Bayesian credible intervals. The numbers above the boxes are differences between the predicted detection probability (leopard absent minus leopard present), with a star symbol indicating statistical significance (i.e., 95% Bayesian credible interval does not overlap with zero)

Model estimates showed that the detection probability of roe deer had marginally significant differences in its relationship with RH and RC when leopards were present or absent (RH: difference = 0.475, 95% BCI [− 0.5, 1.44]; RC: difference = − 0.467, 95% BCI [− 1.11, 0.064]) (Additional file 1: Table S1, Fig. S1-A). Specifically, the detection probability of roe deer tended to increase with RH when leopards were absent (\(p^{{\text{B}}}\)(RH) = 0.246, 95% BCI [− 0.727, 1.161]), but significantly decreased with RH when leopards were present (\(r^{{\text{B}}}\)(RH) = − 0.229, 95% BCI [− 0.357, − 0.11]) (Additional file 1: Table S1, Fig. 4A-a), with SIF between leopards and roe deer decreasing when RH increased (Fig. 4B-a). The detection probability of roe deer had a less negative relationship with RC when leopards were present (\(p^{{\text{B}}}\)(RC) = − 0.79, 95% BCI [− 1.497, − 0.244]; \(r^{{\text{B}}}\)(RC) = − 0.323, 95% BCI [− 0.482, − 0.163) (Additional file 1: Table S1, Fig. 4A-b). Contrary to its relationship with RH, the SIF between leopard and roe deer increased when RC increased (Fig. 4B-b).

Fig. 4
figure 4

The detection probability of two ungulate prey (A) and the species interaction factors between leopard and its prey (B) affected by three types of human activities (a-human, b-cattle, c-road). Lines and shaded areas indicate mean and 95% Bayesian credible intervals (BCIs) of the predictions. Here we only show human activities with significant and marginally significant differences (pBrB) in their relationship with detection probabilities of the prey when leopards are absent and present (i.e., the 95% and 85% BCIs of the estimated differences have no overlap with zero)

For wild boars, detection probability had a significantly different relationship with DR when leopards were present or absent (difference = 0.802, 95% BCI [0.043, 1.4]) (Additional file 1: Table S2, Fig. S1-B). Specifically, the detection probability of wild boar was higher near roads when leopards were present (\(r^{{\text{B}}}\)(DR) = − 0.258, 95% BCI [− 0.492, − 0.002]) but lower near roads when leopards were absent (\(p^{{\text{B}}}\)(DR) = 0.544, 95% BCI [− 0.114, 1.083]) (Fig. 4A-c), with SIF between leopard and wild boar decreased when DR increased (Fig. 4B-c).

Discussion

Although a growing body of research has widely demonstrated the human effects on wildlife habitat use [19, 55, 56], whether and how human activities will affect spatial overlap and strength of interspecific interactions between predator and prey have received less attention. Based on the conditional two-species occupancy model, our analyses suggest that human activities had different effects on the habitat use of prey species when leopards were present or absent, thus altering the relationship of spatial use between the predator and prey.

Overall, the model-estimated detection probabilities of prey with average level of human activities in our study area suggest that, in the non-growing season, both roe deer and wild boar were more likely to be detected with leopards than expected under a hypothesis of independence (Fig. 3). More important, our analyses further indicate that these patterns reflect the interactions under the effects of human activities, which may be different from those without human influence. Specifically, for wild boar, the SIF decreased as distance to roads increased, with SIF smaller than 1 when DR was greater than 2000 m. This result suggests that wild boars are less likely to be detected with leopards at sites far from roads. The overall spatial relationship between leopard and wild boar, however, is the result of an average distance to roads of 1300 m across all camera sites in our study area. The opposite patterns of spatial relationship between leopards and wild boar at sites close to or far from roads suggest that roads completely change the spatial overlap between these two species, and probably also their strength of interactions in our study area. For roe deer, their spatial relationship with leopards in our study area was similar to that with low intensity of human activities, suggesting limited human effects on the spatial overlap between these two species. However, as SIF between leopards and roe deer decreased with RH, we speculate that if the intensity of human presence further increased in our study area (for example, in the growing season with more intensive human use of the forests [33]), the interaction between leopards and roe deer may also be reshaped.

Our analyses showed that wild boar avoided roads when leopards were absent, but preferred roads when leopards were present. Such opposite relationship in the absence or presence of leopards suggest that wild boar may explore areas close to roads as a shelter from leopard predation, especially given the fact that leopards tend to avoid roads in their habitat use (\(p^{{\text{A}}}\)(DR) = 0.15, 95% BCI [− 0.23, 0.49]). On the contrary, roe deer differed in their responses to human and cattle presence. Roe deer increased their avoidance of humans when leopards were present, suggesting that the co-occurrence of humans and leopards may amplify the perceived risks for roe deer. Besides, as the detection probability of leopards was positively correlated to humans (\(p^{{\text{A}}}\)(RH) = 0.34, 95% BCI [0.151, 0.521]) (Additional file 1: Table S1), it is likely that roe deer can spatially avoid humans and leopards simultaneously, as demonstrated by the “predator attraction” effect suggested by Van Scoyoc et al. (2023) [11]. On the contrary, roe deer decreased their avoidance of cattle when leopards were present. Although cattle can compete with roe deer for space and food resources and increase the risk of parasitic transmission, they can also serve as alternative prey, especially the calves, for leopards [57] and such human-associated prey resources may reduce carnivore predation on the natural prey [58].

Overall, our findings provide an empirical case for the human effects on the relationships of spatial uses between leopards and their wild prey. Previous theoretical frameworks often considered human effects on interspecific interactions as results of separate effects on predator and prey [59], but often overlooked the possibility that prey may respond to human activities differently in the presence or absence of predator. By comparing the spatial responses of prey to human activities when leopards are absent or present, our findings highlight that prey response to human activities may be subject to the habitat use of leopards. Although the effects of single types of human activity (e.g., human presence, or human infrastructure) on predator–prey interactions have been examined separately in previous studies [25,26,27], comparison between them in the same system has been limited. Our findings of non-equivalent and even opposite effects of human, cattle and road on the spatial relationships between leopards and their prey suggest that different types of human activities differ in their effects on inter-specific interactions. However, the mechanisms mediating such different effects need further exploration. For instance, compared to human presence, cattle can be alternative food resources for leopards, thus reducing leopard predation on roe deer and increasing their spatial overlap [33]. Identifying the dominant human activity in reshaping predator–prey interactions and its functioning mechanism is therefore important for developing adequate management policies to maintain the inter-specific interaction network.

We emphasize that, although human activities can change the spatial relationships between leopards and their prey, the encounter rate and strength of their interactions may also depend on their behaviors on other ecological dimensions. Prey may use sites occupied by predators, but still avoid them temporally or by reactive behavioral responses [34, 60]. Thereby, to thoroughly understand the mechanism determining human effects on the wildlife communities, it is crucial to further examine human effects on the behavior pattern overlap between predator and prey on different ecological dimensions (e.g., time and space) and the predation rate of predators on their prey.

Conclusion

With the continuous expansion of human activities and increasing human disturbances [61, 62], understanding the potential mechanisms underlying the effects of human activities on wildlife interspecific relationships is pivotal to the development of effective management and conservation policies. Our results confirm that human activity can alter the relationships of spatial uses between predator and prey. Our findings also provide a supportive case for the human shelter effect of roads. Roads are extending into a great proportion of world’s natural habitats, with effects on wildlife behaviors and populations [63, 64]. In addition to effects on single species, we further highlight the need for examining road effects on inter-specific interactions in wildlife communities. Our research demonstrates that direct human encounters and human infrastructures have distinct effects on prey species. We recommend that future studies in assessing human impacts shall consider using multiple metrics rather than a single measurement (e.g., conventionally solely the human presence or human infrastructure) as a proxy for human disturbance. We also highlight that spatial overlap is only a primary proxy for predator–prey interactions. Therefore, further research focusing on wildlife persisting in shared habitats with humans shall integrate results on behavioral responses, physiological status and population dynamics of predators and prey to gain a deeper and more comprehensive insight into human effects on their interactions.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used in this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Li G, Fang C, Li Y, Wang Z, Sun S, He S, et al. Global impacts of future urban expansion on terrestrial vertebrate diversity. Nat Commun. 2022;13:1628.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Powers RP, Jetz W. Global habitat loss and extinction risk of terrestrial vertebrates under future land-use-change scenarios. Nat Clim Chang. 2019;9:323–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Gaynor KM, Hojnowski CE, Carter NH, Brashares JS. The influence of human disturbance on wildlife nocturnality. Science. 2018;360:1232–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wilson MW, Ridlon AD, Gaynor KM, Gaines SD, Stier AC, Halpern BS. Ecological impacts of human-induced animal behaviour change. Ecol Lett. 2020;23:1522–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sévêque A, Gentle LK, Vicente López-Bao J, Yarnell RW, Uzal A. Impact of human disturbance on temporal partitioning within carnivore communities. Mammal Rev. 2022;52:67–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sévêque A, Gentle LK, López-Bao JV, Yarnell RW, Uzal A. Human disturbance has contrasting effects on niche partitioning within carnivore communities. Biol Rev. 2020;95:1689–705.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Estes JA, Terborgh J, Brashares JS, Power ME, Berger J, Bond WJ, et al. Trophic downgrading of planet earth. Science. 2011;333:301–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Smith JA, Wang Y, Wilmers CC. Top carnivores increase their kill rates on prey as a response to human-induced fear. P Roy Soc B-Biol Sci. 2015;282:20142711.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Yovovich V, Thomsen M, Wilmers CC. Pumas’ fear of humans precipitates changes in plant architecture. Ecosphere. 2021;12: e03309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wong BBM, Candolin U. Behavioral responses to changing environments. Behav Ecol. 2015;26:665–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Van Scoyoc A, Smith JA, Gaynor KM, Barker K, Brashares JS. The influence of human activity on predator–prey spatiotemporal overlap. J Anim Ecol. 2023;92:1124–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Morris DW. Paradoxical avoidance of enriched habitats: Have we failed to appreciate omnivores? Ecology. 2005;86:2568–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lahkar D, Ahmed MF, Begum RH, Das SK, Harihar A. Responses of a wild ungulate assemblage to anthropogenic influences in Manas National Park. India Biol Conserv. 2020;243: 108425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Muhly TB, Semeniuk C, Massolo A, Hickman L, Musiani M. Human activity helps prey win the predator-prey space race. PLoS ONE. 2011;6: e17050.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Newsome TM, Dellinger JA, Pavey CR, Ripple WJ, Shores CR, Wirsing AJ, et al. The ecological effects of providing resource subsidies to predators. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2015;24:1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fleming PA, Bateman PW. Novel predation opportunities in anthropogenic landscapes. Anim Behav. 2018;138:145–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Berger J. Fear, human shields and the redistribution of prey and predators in protected areas. Biol Lett. 2007;3:620–3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Suraci JP, Gaynor KM, Allen ML, Alexander P, Brashares JS, Cendejas-Zarelli S, et al. Disturbance type and species life history predict mammal responses to humans. Glob Change Biol. 2021;27:3718–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Nickel BA, Suraci JP, Allen ML, Wilmers CC. Human presence and human footprint have non-equivalent effects on wildlife spatiotemporal habitat use. Biol Conserv. 2020;241: 108383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Procko M, Naidoo R, LeMay V, Burton AC. Human presence and infrastructure impact wildlife nocturnality differently across an assemblage of mammalian species. PLoS ONE. 2023;18:e0286131.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Darimont CT, Fox CH, Bryan HM, Reimchen TE. The unique ecology of human predators. Science. 2015;349:858–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Smith J, Suraci J, Clinchy M, Crawford A, Roberts D, Zanette L, et al. Fear of the human ‘super predator’ reduces feeding time in large carnivores. P Roy Soc B-Biol Sci. 2017;284:20170433.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Suraci JP, Clinchy M, Zanette LY, Wilmers CC. Fear of humans as apex predators has landscape-scale impacts from mountain lions to mice. Ecol Lett. 2019;22:1578–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bateman PW, Fleming PA. Big city life: Carnivores in urban environments. J Zool. 2012;287:1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lone K, Loe LE, Gobakken T, Linnell JDC, Odden J, Remmen J, et al. Living and dying in a multi-predator landscape of fear: Roe deer are squeezed by contrasting pattern of predation risk imposed by lynx and humans. Oikos. 2014;123:641–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Murphy A, Diefenbach DR, Ternent M, Lovallo M, Miller D. Threading the needle: How humans influence predator-prey spatiotemporal interactions in a multiple-predator system. J Anim Ecol. 2021;90:2377–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gaynor KM, McInturff A, Brashares JS. Contrasting patterns of risk from human and non-human predators shape temporal activity of prey. J Anim Ecol. 2022;91:46–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Chen Y, Ma S, Xu J, Guo W, Jia Y, Zhao T. Analysis on climate change and related factors in North China in recent 65 years. J Hebei Norm Univ. 2021;45:314–24.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Jacobson AP, Gerngross P, Lemeris JR Jr, Schoonover RF, Anco C, Breitenmoser-Würsten C, et al. Leopard (Panthera pardus) status, distribution, and the research efforts across its range. PeerJ. 2016;4: e1974.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Fu Y, Zhao G, Dai D, Wang Y, Li J, Tan M, et al. Surprising leopard restoration in fragmented ecosystems reveals connections as the secret to conservation success. Sci Total Environ. 2023;858: 159790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Wang Y, Liu M, Xia F, Wang Y, Song D, Liu Y, et al. Big cats persisting in human-dominated landscape: Habitat suitability and connectivity of leopards in central North China. Landscape Ecol. 2024;39:94.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Yang H, Xie B, Zhao G, Gong Y, Mou P, Ge J, et al. Elusive cats in our backyards: Persistence of the North Chinese leopard (Panthera pardus japonensis) in a human-dominated landscape in central China. Integr Zool. 2021;16:67–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Liu M, Wang Y, Xia F, Bu H, Liu Y, Shen X, et al. Free-ranging livestock altered the spatiotemporal behavior of the endangered North Chinese leopard (Panthera pardus japonensis) and its prey and intensified human–leopard conflicts. Integr Zool. 2023;18:143–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Liu M, McShea WJ, Wang Y, Xia F, Shen X, Li S. Ungulates’ behavioral responses to humans as an apex predator in a hunting-prohibited area of China. Animals. 2023;13:845.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Yan Y, Hong J, Zhang J. Analysis on the characteristics and fragmentation of land use landscape pattern in Heshun County. Shanxi Province J Shanxi Agric Sci. 2018;46:1705–9.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Liu Y, Song D, Liu B, Xia F, Chen Y, Wang Y, et al. Overview of the camera-trapping platform for felid species in China: Data integration by a conservation NGO. Biodiv Sci. 2020;28:1067–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kolowski JM, Oley J, McShea WJ. High-density camera trap grid reveals lack of consistency in detection and capture rates across space and time. Ecosphere. 2021;12: e03350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. O’Brien TG, Kinnaird MF, Wibisono HT. Crouching tigers, hidden prey: Sumatran tiger and prey populations in a tropical forest landscape. Anim Conserv. 2003;6:131–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Feng J, Sun Y, Li H, Xiao Y, Zhang D, Smith JLD, et al. Assessing mammal species richness and occupancy in a Northeast Asian temperate forest shared by cattle. Divers Distrib. 2021;27:857–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker N, Saveliev AA, Smith GM. Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. New York: Springer; 2009.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  41. Richmond OMW, Hines JE, Beissinger SR. Two-species occupancy models: A new parameterization applied to co-occurrence of secretive rails. Ecol Appl. 2010;20:2036–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Lachman GB, Droege S, Andrew Royle J, Langtimm CA. Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology. 2002;83:2248–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Burton AC, Neilson E, Moreira D, Ladle A, Steenweg R, Fisher JT, et al. Wildlife camera trapping: A review and recommendations for linking surveys to ecological processes. J Appl Ecol. 2015;52:675–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Neilson EW, Avgar T, Burton AC, Broadley K, Boutin S. Animal movement affects interpretation of occupancy models from camera-trap surveys of unmarked animals. Ecosphere. 2018;9: e02092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. MacKenzie DI. Occupancy estimation and modeling: Inferring patterns and dynamics of species occurrence. 2nd ed. London, United Kingdom: Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Vitekere K, Wang J, Karanja H, Consolée KT, Jiang G, Hua Y. Dynamic in species estimates of carnivores (leopard cat, red fox, and North Chinese leopard): A multi-year assessment of occupancy and coexistence in the Tieqiaoshan Nature Reserve, Shanxi Province, China. Animals. 2020;10:1333.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Seamans ME, Gutiérrez RJ. Modeling species occurrence dynamics with multiple states and imperfect detection. Ecology. 2009;90:823–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Nichols JD, Hines JE, Mackenzie DI, Seamans ME, Gutiérrez RJ. Occupancy estimation and modeling with multiple states and state uncertainty. Ecology. 2007;88:1395–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Su Y, Yajima M. R2jags: Using R to Run “JAGS” [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=R2jags

  50. Hobbs NT, Hooten MB. Bayesian models: a statistical primer for ecologists. STU-Student edition: Princeton University Press; 2015.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  51. Vehtari A, Gelman A, Gabry J. Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC. Stat Comput. 2017;27:1413–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Sivula T, Magnusson M, Matamoros AA, Vehtari A. Uncertainty in Bayesian Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation Based Model Comparison [Internet]. arXiv; 2023. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/2008.10296

  53. Bivand RS, Wong DWS. Comparing implementations of global and local indicators of spatial association. TEST. 2018;27:716–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Moran PAP. Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena. Biometrika. 1950;37:17–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Corradini A, Randles M, Pedrotti L, Van Loon E, Passoni G, Oberosler V, et al. Effects of cumulated outdoor activity on wildlife habitat use. Biol Conserv. 2021;253: 108818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Beckmann JP, Murray K, Seidler RG, Berger J. Human-mediated shifts in animal habitat use: Sequential changes in pronghorn use of a natural gas field in Greater Yellowstone. Biol Conserv. 2012;147:222–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Wang Y, Ma Z, Wang G, Liu Y, Song D, Liu B, et al. Spatiotemporal patterns of cattle depredation by the North Chinese leopard in Taihang Mountains and its management strategy: A case study in Heshun, Shanxi Province. Biodiv Sci. 2022;30:21510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Athreya V, Odden M, Linnell JDC, Krishnaswamy J, Karanth KU. A cat among the dogs: Leopard Panthera pardus diet in a human-dominated landscape in western Maharashtra, India. Oryx. 2016;50:156–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Miller JRB, Schmitz OJ. Landscape of fear and human-predator coexistence: Applying spatial predator-prey interaction theory to understand and reduce carnivore-livestock conflict. Biol Conserv. 2019;236:464–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Kronfeld-Schor N, Dayan T. Partitioning of time as an ecological resource. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2003;34:153–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Venter O, Sanderson EW, Magrach A, Allan JR, Beher J, Jones KR, et al. Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nat Commun. 2016;7:12558.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Kennedy CM, Oakleaf JR, Theobald DM, Baruch-Mordo S, Kiesecker J. Managing the middle: A shift in conservation priorities based on the global human modification gradient. Glob Change Biol. 2019;25:811–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Ibisch PL, Hoffmann MT, Kreft S, Pe’er G, Kati V, Biber-Freudenberger L, et al. A global map of roadless areas and their conservation status. Science. 2016;354:1423–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Benítez-López A, Alkemade R, Verweij PA. The impacts of roads and other infrastructure on mammal and bird populations: A meta-analysis. Biol Conserv. 2010;143:1307–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We sincerely thank the local government of Heshun County for providing permission and assistance for this study. We thank all the volunteers and local field staff, especially Yudong Li, and Chinese Field Conservation Alliance (CFCA) for their great contributions to the field survey.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Key Program of Research and Development, Ministry of Science and Technology of China (Grant Number 2022YFF1301500 and 2022YFF0802300).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Conceptualization, M.L.; methodology, Y.W. and M.L.; software, Y.W.; validation, M.L.; formal analysis, Y. W.; investigation, Y.W., M.L. and F.X.; resources, S.L.; data curation, Y.W., M.L. and F.X.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.W.; writing—review and editing, M.L. and S.L.; visualization, Y.W. and M.L.; supervision, S.L.; project administration, S.L.; funding acquisition, S.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sheng Li.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, 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 changes were made. 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/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, Y., Liu, M., Xia, F. et al. Human activities reshape the spatial overlap between North Chinese leopard and its wild ungulate prey. Front Zool 21, 24 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12983-024-00545-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12983-024-00545-z

Keywords