Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35529483›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2022

Scavenging

Mitchell A Parsons, Andrew Garcia, Julie K Young

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Mitchell A ParsonsDepartment of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, UT, United States of America.
Andrew GarciaNational Wildlife Research Center - Predator Research Facility, USDA, Millville, UT, USA.
Julie K YoungDepartment of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, UT, United States of America.
National Wildlife Research Center

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Human-induced changes to ecosystems transform the availability of resources to predators, including altering prey populations and increasing access to anthropogenic foods. Opportunistic predators are likely to respond to altered food resources by changing the proportion of food they hunt versus scavenge. These shifts in foraging behavior will affect species interactions through multiple pathways, including by changing other aspects of predator behavior such as boldness, innovation, and social structure. Methods: To understand how foraging behavior impacts predator behavior, we conducted a controlled experiment to simulate hunting by introducing a prey model to captive coyotes ( Results: We documented increased time spent resting by hunting coyotes paired with decreased time spent active. Hunting coyotes increased boldness and persistence but there were no changes in innovation. Our results illustrate how foraging behavior can impact other aspects of behavior, with potential ecological consequences to predator ecology, predator-prey dynamics, and human-wildlife conflict; however, the captive nature of our study limits specific conclusions related to wild predators. We conclude that human-induced behavioral changes could have cascading ecological implications that are not fully understood.

Indexed as

CoyotesEcosystemPredatory BehaviorAnimalsAnthropogenic foodCanis latransForaging ecologyNovel objectPredator-preyPuzzle box

Identifiers

PMID35529483
PMCPMC9070321
OpenAlexW4225266803

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.