ReviewEcology letters2022
A skewed literature: Few studies evaluate the contribution of predation-risk effects to natural field patterns.
Review in Ecology letters, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 55 citations in OpenAlex.
- Knowledge gaps and areas for synthesis in experimental studies of context-dependent predation risk.Ecology · 2026Review
- Top-Down and Bottom-Up Processes Jointly Explain Mesopredator Movement and Foraging Ecology.Ecology letters · 2026Article
- Early-life, but not late-life, exposure to predator cues reduce the lifespan and reproductive output of freshwater snails.Oecologia · 2025Article
- When, where, and how prey pair antipredator behaviors to natural and anthropogenic mortality risks.Movement ecology · 2025Article
- Acceleration Data Reveal Behavioural Responses to Hunting Risk in Scandinavian Brown Bears.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Similar Conditions With Opposite Effects: Predation-Risk Effects on Prey Abundance Are Highly Contingent.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Long-term anti-predator learning and memory differ across populations and sexes in an intertidal snail.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024Article
- Review
- A skewed literature: Few studies evaluate the contribution of predation-risk effects to natural field patterns.Ecology letters · 2022Review
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 at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
A narrative in ecology is that prey modify traits to reduce predation risk, and the trait modification has costs large enough to cause ensuing demographic, trophic and ecosystem consequences, with implications for conservation, management and agriculture. But ecology has a long history of emphasising that quantifying the importance of an ecological process ultimately requires evidence linking a process to unmanipulated field patterns. We suspected that such process-linked-to-pattern (PLP) studies were poorly represented in the predation risk literature, which conflicts with the confidence often given to the importance of risk effects. We reviewed 29 years of the ecological literature which revealed that there are well over 4000 articles on risk effects. Of those, 349 studies examined risk effects on prey fitness measures or abundance (i.e., non-consumptive effects) of which only 26 were PLP studies, while 275 studies examined effects on other interacting species (i.e., trait-mediated indirect effects) of which only 35 were PLP studies. PLP studies were narrowly focused taxonomically and included only three that examined unmanipulated patterns of prey abundance. Before concluding a widespread and influential role of predation-risk effects, more attention must be given to linking the process of risk effects to unmanipulated patterns observed across diverse ecosystems.
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.