Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30963853›Full record

ReviewProceedings. Biological sciences2019

Dung beetle-mammal associations: methods, research trends and future directions.

Elizabeth H Raine, Eleanor M Slade

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

2 authors.

Elizabeth H Raine1 Department of Zoology, University of Oxford , South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS , UK.
Eleanor M Slade1 Department of Zoology, University of Oxford , South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS , UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dung beetles are increasingly used as a study taxon-both as bioindicators of environmental change, and as a model system for exploring ecosystem functioning. The advantages of this focal taxon approach are many; dung beetles are abundant in a wide range of terrestrial ecosystems, speciose, straightforward to sample, respond to environmental gradients and can be easily manipulated to explore species-functioning relationships. However, there remain large gaps in our understanding of the relationship between dung beetles and the mammals they rely on for dung. Here we review the literature, showing that despite an increase in the study of dung beetles linked to ecosystem functioning and to habitat and land use change, there has been little research into their associations with mammals. We summarize the methods and findings from dung beetle-mammal association studies to date, revealing that although empirical field studies of dung beetles rarely include mammal data, those that do, indicate mammal species presence and composition has a large impact on dung beetle species richness and abundance. We then review the methods used to carry out diet preference and ecosystem functioning studies, finding that despite the assumption that dung beetles are generalist feeders, there are few quantitative studies that directly address this. Together this suggests that conclusions about the effects of habitat change on dung beetles are based on incomplete knowledge. We provide recommendations for future work to identify the importance of considering mammal data for dung beetle distributions, composition and their contributions to ecosystem functioning; a critical step if dung beetles are to be used as a reliable bioindicator taxon.

Indexed as

BiodiversityFecesFood ChainAnimalsColeopteraEcosystemMammalsconservationecosystem functioningindicator taxamammalsscarabaeoidaetrophic interaction

Identifiers

PMID30963853
PMCPMC6408906

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.