ArticleOecologia2021
Forage stoichiometry predicts the home range size of a small terrestrial herbivore.
Article in Oecologia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Resource availability and anthropogenic disturbance alter how wolves move and feed: comparing two populations.Movement ecology · 2026Article
- Article
- How resource abundance and resource stochasticity affect organisms' range sizes.Movement ecology · 2025Article
- Linking Phylogeny and Morphology to Resource Assimilation Within Aquatic Assemblages.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Ranging behaviours across ecological and anthropogenic disturbance gradients: a pan-African perspective of giraffe (Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Article
- Ecoregion and community structure influences on the foliar elemental niche of balsam fir (Ecology and evolution · 2022Article
- In defense of elemental currencies: can ecological stoichiometry stand as a framework for terrestrial herbivore nutritional ecology?Oecologia · 2022Review
- Integrating plant stoichiometry and feeding experiments: state-dependent forage choice and its implications on body mass.Oecologia · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Home range size of consumers varies with food quality, but the many ways of defining food quality hamper comparisons across studies. Ecological stoichiometry studies the elemental balance of ecological processes and offers a uniquely quantitative, transferrable way to assess food quality using elemental ratios, e.g., carbon (C):nitrogen (N). Here, we test whether snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus) vary their home range size in response to spatial patterns of C:N, C:phosphorus (P), and N:P ratios of two preferred boreal forage species, lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium) and red maple (Acer rubrum), in summer months. Boreal forests are N- and P-limited ecosystems and access to N- and P-rich forage is paramount to snowshoe hares' survival. Accordingly, we consider forage with higher C content relative to N and P to be lower quality than forage with lower relative C content. We combine elemental distribution models with summer home range size estimates to test the hypothesis that home range size will be smaller in areas with access to high, homogeneous food quality compared to areas of low, heterogeneous food quality. Our results show snowshoe hares had smaller home ranges in areas where lowbush blueberry foliage quality was higher or more spatially homogenous than in areas of lower, more heterogeneous food quality. By responding to spatial patterns of food quality, consumers may influence community and ecosystem processes by, for example, varying nutrient recycling rates. Our reductionist biogeochemical approach to viewing resources leads us to holistic insights into consumer spatial ecology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34131817What 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.