Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28331601›Full record

ReviewEcology and evolution2017

Methods to identify the prey of invertebrate predators in terrestrial field studies.

Klaus Birkhofer, Helena Bylund, Peter Dalin, Olga Ferlian, Vesna Gagic, Peter A Hambäck, Maartje Klapwijk, Laia Mestre, Eve Roubinet, Martin Schroeder and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ecology and evolution, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
12.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 106 citations in OpenAlex.

  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. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

14 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Klaus BirkhoferDepartment of Biology, Biodiversity and Conservation Science Lund University Lund Sweden; Chair of Ecology Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9301-2443
Helena BylundDepartment of Ecology Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Uppsala Sweden.
Peter DalinDepartment of Ecology Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Uppsala Sweden.
Olga FerlianGerman Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig Leipzig Germany; Institute of Biology Leipzig University Leipzig Germany.
Vesna GagicDepartment of Ecology Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Uppsala Sweden; CSIRO Brisbane QLD Australia.
Peter A HambäckDepartment of Ecology, Environment and Plant Sciences Stockholm University Stockholm Sweden.
Maartje KlapwijkDepartment of Ecology Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Uppsala Sweden.
Laia MestreDepartment of Ecology Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Uppsala Sweden; Ecosystem Analysis Institute for Environmental Sciences University of Koblenz-Landau Landau Germany.
Eve RoubinetDepartment of Ecology Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Uppsala Sweden.
Martin SchroederDepartment of Ecology Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Uppsala Sweden.
Johan A StenbergDepartment of Plant Protection Biology Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Alnarp Sweden.
Mario PorcelDepartment of Plant Protection Biology Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Alnarp Sweden.
Christer BjörkmanDepartment of Ecology Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Uppsala Sweden.
Mattias JonssonDepartment of Ecology Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Uppsala Sweden.
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences · SECommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation · AUGerman Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research · DELund University · SEStockholm University · SEUniversity of Koblenz and Landau · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Predation is an interaction during which an organism kills and feeds on another organism. Past and current interest in studying predation in terrestrial habitats has yielded a number of methods to assess invertebrate predation events in terrestrial ecosystems. We provide a decision tree to select appropriate methods for individual studies. For each method, we then present a short introduction, key examples for applications, advantages and disadvantages, and an outlook to future refinements. Video and, to a lesser extent, live observations are recommended in studies that address behavioral aspects of predator-prey interactions or focus on per capita predation rates. Cage studies are only appropriate for small predator species, but often suffer from a bias via cage effects. The use of prey baits or analyses of prey remains are cheaper than other methods and have the potential to provide per capita predation estimates. These advantages often come at the cost of low taxonomic specificity. Molecular methods provide reliable estimates at a fine level of taxonomic resolution and are free of observer bias for predator species of any size. However, the current PCR-based methods lack the ability to estimate predation rates for individual predators and are more expensive than other methods. Molecular and stable isotope analyses are best suited to address systems that include a range of predator and prey species. Our review of methods strongly suggests that while in many cases individual methods are sufficient to study specific questions, combinations of methods hold a high potential to provide more holistic insights into predation events. This review presents an overview of methods to researchers that are new to the field or to particular aspects of predation ecology and provides recommendations toward the subset of suitable methods to identify the prey of invertebrate predators in terrestrial field research.

Indexed as

cage experimentsfatty acid analysisfield observationsmolecular gut content analysisprey baitsstable isotope analysis

Identifiers

PMID28331601
PMCPMC5355183
OpenAlexW2590071430

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.