SynthesisPloS one2017
A systematic review of elephant impact across Africa.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.
- Elephant Rewilding Indirectly Affects Rodent Site-Use and Behavior by Moderating Coarse Woody Debris Density.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Impacts of large herbivores on savanna plant communities: Predictive models of herbivore selectivity and plant response.Ecology · 2026Article
- Long-term vegetation changes in elephant-related areas of concern in Kruger National Park, South Africa.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2026Article
- The "Too-Few Elephant Problem": Quantitative Analysis of Historical Elephant Tree-Toppling Rates Across Africa.Ecosystems (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- An open-access global database of meta-analyses investigating yield and biodiversity responses to different management practices.Data in brief · 2023Article
- Elephants and algorithms: a review of the current and future role of AI in elephant monitoring.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2023Review
- Consumer-grade UAV imagery facilitates semantic segmentation of species-rich savanna tree layers.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Seasonal range fidelity of a megaherbivore in response to environmental change.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Review
- The Chemical Ecology of Elephants: 21st Century Additions to Our Understanding and Future Outlooks.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Review
- Heterogeneity in African savanna elephant distributions and their impacts on trees in Kruger National Park, South Africa.Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
- Effects of disturbances by forest elephants on diversity of trees and insects in tropical rainforests on Mount Cameroon.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Water for African elephants (Biology letters · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Contradictory findings among scientific studies that address a particular issue may impede the conversion of science to management implementation. A systematic review of peer-reviewed studies to generate a single outcome may overcome this problem. The contentious topic of the impact that a megaherbivore such as the savanna elephant have for other species and their environment can benefit from such an approach. After some 68 years, 367 peer-reviewed papers covered the topic and 51 of these papers provided sufficient data to be included in a meta-analysis. We separated the direct impact that elephants had on trees and herbs from the indirect effects on other vertebrates, invertebrates, and soil properties. Elephants have an impact on tree structure and abundance but no overall negative cascading effects for species that share space with them. Primary productivity explained a small amount of variation of elephant impact on vegetation. Elephant numbers (density), study duration, rainfall, tree cover, and the presence of artificial water and fences failed to describe patterns of impact. We conclude that published information do not support the calls made for artificially manipulating elephant numbers to ameliorate elephant impact, and call for the management of space use by elephants to maintain savanna heterogeneity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.