Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35305156›Full record

ArticleOecologia2022

Predation of boreal owl nests by pine martens in the boreal forest does not vary as predicted by the alternative prey hypothesis.

Geir A Sonerud

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oecologia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

1 author.

Geir A SonerudFaculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, P. O. Box 5003, NO-1432, Ås, Norway. geir.sonerud@nmbu.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9575-3512

Funding

Nansen Endowment 102/87, 101/88, 111/89, 82/90, 97/91, 101/92, 203/93, 197b/94, 87/95.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The alternative prey hypothesis (APH) states that temporally synchronous population fluctuations of microtine rodents and other small herbivores are caused by generalist predators that show functional and numerical responses to the abundance of microtines. This would lead to an increased predation of alternative prey in the low phase of the microtine population fluctuations. One candidate for such a predator is the tree-climbing pine marten (Martes martes), which includes bird eggs in its diet, among them eggs of the cavity-nesting boreal owl (Aegolius funereus). I used long-term data to test whether pine marten predation of boreal owl eggs in nest boxes varied as predicted by the APH. The probability of predation of owl nests situated < 45 km from a site where microtines were trapped in spring during four decades increased with microtine trapping index, which is opposite to the prediction from the APH. As the data set was limited to one nest per box, I extended it spatially and temporally using the clutch size of each boreal owl nest as a proxy for the actual microtine abundance at the site. The probability of nest predation increased with clutch size. However, the effects of microtine index and owl clutch size became non-significant when I controlled for habitat, and in particular cavity age, which had an overriding effect. The increase in predation probability with cavity age suggests that the long-term spatial memory of pine marten is an important factor in the pattern of its nest predation in tree cavities.

Indexed as

MustelidaeStrigiformesAnimalsArvicolinaeNesting BehaviorPredatory BehaviorTaigaAegolius funereus .Alternative prey hypothesisCavity-nestingLong-term spatial memoryMartes martesMicrotine rodentsNest predation

Identifiers

PMID35305156
PMCPMC9056444

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.