Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35925978›Full record

ReviewEcology letters2022

A skewed literature: Few studies evaluate the contribution of predation-risk effects to natural field patterns.

Scott D Peacor, Nathan J Dorn, Justine A Smith, Nicole E Peckham, Michael J Cherry, Michael J Sheriff, David L Kimbro

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
13.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
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

7 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Scott D PeacorDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5334-7775
Nathan J DornDepartment of Biological Sciences and Institute of Environment, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA.
Justine A SmithDepartment of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, University of California - Davis, Davis, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8753-4061
Nicole E PeckhamDepartment of Marine and Environmental Science, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4942-4018
Michael J CherryCaesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Texas A&M University-Kingsville, Kingsville, Texas, USA.
Michael J SheriffBiology Department, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, Dartmouth, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4711-3531
David L KimbroDepartment of Marine and Environmental Science, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5230-2877
Northeastern University · USFlorida International University · USMichigan State University · USTexas A&M University – Kingsville · USUniversity of California, Davis · USUniversity of Massachusetts Dartmouth · US

Funding

Directorate for Biological Sciences 1145808Division of Ocean Sciences 1736943Florida International UniversityMichigan State UniversityNational Science Foundation
6 · The paper itself

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

EcosystemPredatory BehaviorAnimalsFood Chainfearnatural experimentnon-consumptivenon-lethalobservationalplasticitypredation riskprocess from patterntrait mediatedtrait response

Identifiers

PMID35925978
PMCPMC9545701
OpenAlexW4289850782

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.