SynthesisPloS one2022
The effects of population management on wild ungulates: A systematic map of evidence for UK species.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOver recent decades, the abundance and geographic ranges of wild ungulate species have expanded in many parts of Europe, including the UK. Populations are managed to mitigate their ecological impacts using interventions, such as shooting, fencing and administering contraception. Predicting how target species will respond to interventions is critical for developing sustainable, effective and efficient management strategies. However, the quantity and quality of evidence of the effects of interventions on ungulate species is unclear. To address this, we systematically mapped research on the effects of population management on wild ungulate species resident in the UK.
methodsWe searched four bibliographic databases, Google Scholar and nine organisational websites using search terms tested with a library of 30 relevant articles. Worldwide published peer-reviewed articles were considered, supplemented by 'grey' literature from UK-based sources. Three reviewers identified and screened articles for eligibility at title, abstract and full-text levels, based on predefined criteria. Data and metadata were extracted and summarised in a narrative synthesis supported by structured graphical matrices.
resultsA total of 123 articles were included in the systematic map. Lethal interventions were better represented (85%, n = 105) than non-lethal interventions (25%, n = 25). Outcomes related to demography and behaviour were reported in 95% of articles (n = 117), whereas effects on health, physiology and morphology were studied in only 11% of articles (n = 14). Well-studied species included wild pigs (n = 58), red deer (n = 28) and roe deer (n = 23).
conclusionsEvidence for the effects of population management on wild ungulate species is growing but currently limited and unevenly distributed across intervention types, outcomes and species. Priorities for primary research include: species responses to non-lethal interventions, the side-effects of shooting and studies on sika deer and Chinese muntjac. Shooting is the only intervention for which sufficient evidence exists for systematic review or meta-analysis.
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.