ArticleEcology and evolution2022
Standardizing protocols for determining the cause of mortality in wildlife studies.
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 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sympatry Increases Predation Risk for an Endangered Ungulate.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Where Dinner Roams: The Role of Feral Horses as a Resource Subsidy for Wolves and Cougars in West-Central British Columbia.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Predation vs. Parasitism: A Case Study of Indigenous Co-Stewardship and Science Co-Production to Measure Temporal Shifts in Moose Mortality on Ancestral Lands of the Grand Portage Ojibwe.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- A LEAP Forward in Wildlife Conservation: A Standardized Framework to Determine Mortality Causes in Large GPS-Tagged Birds.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- The paradox of predation studies.Biology letters · 2023Article
- Article
- Standardizing protocols for determining the cause of mortality in wildlife studies.Ecology and evolution · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mortality site investigations of telemetered wildlife are important for cause-specific survival analyses and understanding underlying causes of observed population dynamics. Yet, eroding ecoliteracy and a lack of quality control in data collection can lead researchers to make incorrect conclusions, which may negatively impact management decisions for wildlife populations. We reviewed a random sample of 50 peer-reviewed studies published between 2000 and 2019 on survival and cause-specific mortality of ungulates monitored with telemetry devices. This concise review revealed extensive variation in reporting of field procedures, with many studies omitting critical information for the cause of mortality inference. Field protocols used to investigate mortality sites and ascertain the cause of mortality are often minimally described and frequently fail to address how investigators dealt with uncertainty. We outline a step-by-step procedure for mortality site investigations of telemetered ungulates, including evidence that should be documented in the field. Specifically, we highlight data that can be useful to differentiate predation from scavenging and more conclusively identify the predator species that killed the ungulate. We also outline how uncertainty in identifying the cause of mortality could be acknowledged and reported. We demonstrate the importance of rigorous protocols and prompt site investigations using data from our 5-year study on survival and cause-specific mortality of telemetered mule deer (
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.