ABSTRACT Human expansion intensifies spatiotemporal pressures on wildlife, yet the underlying biological constraints shaping species' strategies remain poorly understood. Endogenous circadian rhythms fundamentally limit temporal flexibility, creating an evolutionary trade‐off between temporal and spatial refuge use. Here, we integrate 25 months of camera‐trap data from human‐dominated mountain landscapes in southwestern China to quantify this trade‐off across diverse avian and mammalian guilds. By correlating temporal overlap coefficients (Δ) with spatial overlap indices ( O jk ) and utilizing Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMMs), we evaluated how functional groups partition space and time to navigate human and livestock disturbances. We reveal a strong negative correlation between spatial and temporal overlap across species for both humans ( r = −0.680) and livestock ( r = −0.700), providing robust evidence that wildlife predominantly relies on either spatial or temporal avoidance. Diurnal guilds (e.g., large pheasants and herbivores) exhibited high temporal overlap (Δ: 0.749–0.866) with human activity but minimized spatial overlap ( O jk : 0.006–0.275), suggesting reliance on habitat segregation. Conversely, nocturnal species maintained spatial coexistence ( O jk : 0.106–0.492) but achieved temporal segregation by shifting peak activities deeper into the night (Δ: 0.202–0.333). Furthermore, trophic position significantly modulated these spatial responses. While most guilds showed broad spatial tolerance, carnivores exhibited a distinct “push‐pull” dynamic: significantly avoiding human presence (β = −0.0233, p = 0.023) while being spatially attracted to livestock (β = 0.010, p = 0.038). Additionally, although herbivores lacked a statistically significant response to livestock intensity, their distinctly lower spatial overlap with livestock compared to other guilds hints at potential competitive exclusion. These findings provide observational evidence for human‐wildlife coexistence in human‐dominated landscapes and highlight the need to consider species' circadian activity patterns and functional group differences when formulating conservation strategies.
Jin et al. (Fri,) studied this question.