Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28231256›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Advancing the match-mismatch framework for large herbivores in the Arctic: Evaluating the evidence for a trophic mismatch in caribou.

David Gustine, Perry Barboza, Layne Adams, Brad Griffith, Raymond Cameron, Kenneth Whitten

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Global shifts in the phenological synchrony of species interactions over recent decades.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

David GustineU.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, Alaska, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1087-1937
Perry BarbozaWildlife and Fisheries Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, United States of America.
Layne AdamsU.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, Alaska, United States of America.
Brad GriffithU.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska, United States of America.
Raymond CameronAlaska Department of Fish and Game, Fairbanks, Alaska, United States of America.
Kenneth WhittenAlaska Department of Fish and Game, Fairbanks, Alaska, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Climate-induced shifts in plant phenology may adversely affect animals that cannot or do not shift the timing of their reproductive cycle. The realized effect of potential trophic "mismatches" between a consumer and its food varies with the degree to which species rely on dietary income and stored capital. Large Arctic herbivores rely heavily on maternal capital to reproduce and give birth near the onset of the growing season but are they vulnerable to trophic mismatch? We evaluated the long-term changes in the temperatures and characteristics of the growing seasons (1970-2013), and compared growing conditions and dynamics of forage quality for caribou at peak parturition, peak lactation, and peak forage biomass, and plant senescence between two distinct time periods over 36 years (1977 and 2011-13). Despite advanced thaw dates (7-12 days earlier), increased growing season lengths (15-21 days longer), and consistent parturition dates, we found no decline in forage quality and therefore no evidence within this dataset for a trophic mismatch at peak parturition or peak lactation from 1977 to 2011-13. In Arctic ungulates that use stored capital for reproduction, reproductive demands are largely met by body stores deposited in the previous summer and autumn, which reduces potential adverse effects of any mismatch between food availability and timing of parturition. Climate-induced effects on forages growing in the summer and autumn ranges, however, do correspond with the demands of female caribou and their offspring to gain mass for the next reproductive cycle and winter. Therefore, we suggest the window of time to examine the match-mismatch framework in Arctic ungulates is not at parturition but in late summer-autumn, where the multiplier effects of small changes in forage quality are amplified by forage abundance, peak forage intake, and resultant mass gains in mother-offspring pairs.

Indexed as

HerbivoryAnimalsAppetitive BehaviorArctic RegionsBiomassClimate ChangeFemaleLactationNitrogenParturitionPlant DevelopmentReindeerSeasonsTemperatureNitrogen

Identifiers

PMID28231256
PMCPMC5322966

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.