ArticleScientific reports2021
Untangling the influence of biotic and abiotic factors on habitat selection by a tropical rodent.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding how animal populations respond to environmental factors is critical because large-scale environmental processes (e.g., habitat fragmentation, climate change) are impacting ecosystems at unprecedented rates. On an overgrazed floodplain in north-western Australia, a native rodent (Pale Field Rat, Rattus tunneyi) constructs its burrows primarily beneath an invasive tree (Chinee Apple, Ziziphus mauritiana) rather than native trees. The dense thorny foliage of the Chinee Apple may allow high rat densities either because of abiotic effects (shade, in a very hot environment) or biotic processes (protection from trampling and soil compaction by feral horses, and/or predation). To distinguish between these hypotheses, we manipulated Chinee Apple foliage to modify biotic factors (access to horses and predators) but not shade levels. We surveyed the rat population with Elliott traps under treatment and control trees and in the open woodland, in two seasons (the breeding season-January, and the nesting season-May). In the breeding season, we ran giving-up density experiments (GUD) with food trays, to assess the perceived risk of predation by rats across our three treatments. Selective trimming of foliage did not affect thermal regimes underneath the trees but did allow ingress of horses and we observed two collapsed burrows as a consequence (although long term impacts of horses were not measured). The perceived predation risk also increased (GUD values at food trays increased) and was highest in the open woodland. Our manipulation resulted in a shift in rat sex ratios (indicating female preference for breeding under control but not foliage-trimmed trees) and influenced rat behaviour (giving-up densities increased; large dominant males inhabited the control but not treatment trees). Our data suggest that the primary benefit of the Chinee Apple tree to native rodents lies in physical protection from predators and (potentially) feral horses, rather than in providing cooler microhabitat.
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.