Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBejder, Lars  Concept link
dc.contributor.authorSamuels, Amy  Concept link
dc.contributor.authorWhitehead, Hal  Concept link
dc.contributor.authorFinn, H.  Concept link
dc.contributor.authorAllen, S.  Concept link
dc.date.accessioned2011-04-08T18:37:15Z
dc.date.available2011-04-08T18:37:15Z
dc.date.issued2009-12-03
dc.identifier.citationMarine Ecology Progress Series 395 (2009): 177-185en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1912/4451
dc.descriptionAuthor Posting. © Inter-Research, 2009. This article is posted here by permission of Inter-Research for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Marine Ecology Progress Series 395 (2009): 177-185, doi:10.3354/meps07979.en_US
dc.description.abstractStudies on the effects of anthropogenic activity on wildlife aim to provide a sound scientific basis for management. However, misinterpretation of the theoretical basis for these studies can jeopardise this objective and lead to management outcomes that are detrimental to the wildlife they are intended to protect. Misapplication of the terms ‘habituation’, ‘sensitisation’ and ‘tolerance’ in impact studies, for example, can lead to fundamental misinterpretations of research findings. Habituation is often used incorrectly to refer to any form of moderation in wildlife response to human disturbance, rather than to describe a progressive reduction in response to stimuli that are perceived as neither aversive nor beneficial. This misinterpretation, when coupled with the widely held assumption that habituation has a positive or neutral outcome for animals, can lead to inappropriate decisions about the threats human interactions pose to wildlife. We review the conceptual framework for the use of habituation, sensitisation and tolerance, and provide a set of principles for their appropriate application in studies of behavioural responses to anthropogenic stimuli. We describe how cases of presumed habituation or sensitisation may actually represent differences in the tolerance levels of wildlife to anthropogenic activity. This distinction is vital because impact studies must address (1) the various mechanisms by which differing tolerance levels can occur; and (2) the range of explanations for habituation- and sensitisation-type responses. We show that only one mechanism leads to true behavioural habituation (or sensitisation), while a range of mechanisms can lead to changes in tolerance.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThis essay is a by-product of research funded by the Danish Research Agency, The Western Australian Department of Conservation and Land Management, the PADI Foundation, the US Marine Mammal Commission, and the Patrick Lett Fund.en_US
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherInter-Researchen_US
dc.relation.urihttps://doi.org/10.3354/meps07979
dc.subjectHabituationen_US
dc.subjectSensitisationen_US
dc.subjectToleranceen_US
dc.subjectHuman disturbanceen_US
dc.subjectWildlife managementen_US
dc.subjectConservationen_US
dc.subjectImpact assessmenten_US
dc.titleImpact assessment research : use and misuse of habituation, sensitisation and tolerance in describing wildlife responses to anthropogenic stimulien_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.3354/meps07979


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record