Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33024625›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2020

Site selection by geese in a suburban landscape.

Quentin J Groom, Tim Adriaens, Claire Colsoulle, Pauline Delhez, Iris Van der Beeten

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Quentin J GroomMeise Botanic Garden, Meise, Vlaams Brabant, Belgium.
Tim AdriaensResearch Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Brussels, Belgium.
Claire ColsoulleUniversité catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
Pauline DelhezUniversité de Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Iris Van der BeetenMeise Botanic Garden, Meise, Vlaams Brabant, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn European and North American cities geese are among the most common and most visible large herbivores. As such, their presence and behaviour often conflict with the desires of the human residents. Fouling, noise, aggression and health concerns are all cited as reasons that there are "

methodsUsing observations collected over five years from a botanic garden situated in suburban Belgium and data from the whole of Flanders in Belgium, we examined landscape features that attract geese. These included the presence of islands in lakes, the distance from water, barriers to level flight and the size of exploited areas. The birds studied were the tadornine goose

resultsOur results demonstrate that lakes with islands attract more than twice as many anserine geese than lakes without islands, but make little difference to Egyptian geese. Furthermore, flight barriers between grazing areas and lakes are an effective deterrent to geese using an area for feeding. Keeping grazing areas small and surrounded by trees reduces their attractiveness to geese.

conclusionThe results suggest that landscape design can be used successfully to reduce the number of geese and their conflict with humans. However, this approach has its limitations and would require humans to compromise on what they expect from their landscaped parks, such as open vistas, lakes, islands and closely cropped lawns.

Indexed as

Alopochen aegyptiacaAnser anserBehaviorBelgiumBranta canadensisBranta leucopsisFeralHabitatInvasiveWildlife management

Identifiers

PMID33024625
PMCPMC7518184

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.