Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35126999›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2022

Effects of intraspecific competition and body mass on diet specialization in a mammalian scavenger.

Anna C Lewis, Channing Hughes, Tracey L Rogers

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anna C LewisEvolution and Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences University of New South Wales Sydney Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5397-5309
Channing HughesThe Carnivore Conservancy Ulverstone Tasmania Australia.
Tracey L RogersEvolution and Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences University of New South Wales Sydney Australia.
UNSW Sydney · AUThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animals that rely extensively on scavenging rather than hunting must exploit resources that are inherently patchy, dangerous, or subject to competition. Though it may be expected that scavengers should therefore form opportunistic feeding habits in order to survive, a broad species diet may mask specialization occurring at an individual level. To test this, we used stable isotope analysis to analyze the degree of specialization in the diet of the Tasmanian devil, one of few mammalian species to develop adaptations for scavenging. We found that the majority of individuals were dietary specialists, indicating that they fed within a narrow trophic niche despite their varied diet as a species. Even in competitive populations, only small individuals could be classified as true trophic generalists; larger animals in those populations were trophic specialists. In populations with reduced levels of competition, all individuals were capable of being trophic specialists. Heavier individuals showed a greater degree of trophic specialization, suggesting either that mass is an important driver of diet choice or that trophic specialization is an efficient foraging strategy allowing greater mass gain. Devils may be unique among scavenging mammals in the extent to which they can specialize their diets, having been released from the competitive pressure of larger carnivores.

Indexed as

body mass influencecompetitiondietforagingscavengerscavenging theoryspecializationstable isotopes

Identifiers

PMID35126999
PMCPMC8794717
OpenAlexW4206484019

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.