Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36869089›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Living in human-modified landscapes narrows the dietary niche of a specialised mammalian scavenger.

Anna C Lewis, Channing Hughes, Tracey L Rogers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Anna C LewisEvolution and Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. annacllewis@gmail.com.
Channing HughesSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Tracey L RogersEvolution and Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anthropogenic impacts on carnivores can be complex, posing numerous threats to many species, yet also benefits to those able to exploit certain resources. This balancing act is particularly precarious for those adapters that exploit dietary resources provided by humans, but still require other resources only available in native habitat. Here we measure the dietary niche of one such species, the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii), a specialised mammalian scavenger, across an anthropogenic habitat gradient stretching from cleared pasture to undisturbed rainforest. Populations inhabiting areas of greater disturbance showed restricted dietary niches, suggesting that all individuals fed on similar food items, even within regenerated native forest. Populations in undisturbed rainforest habitats had comparatively broad diets and showed evidence of niche partitioning by body size, which may reduce intraspecific competition. Despite the potential benefits of reliable access to high-quality food items in anthropogenically-modified habitats, the constrained niches we observed may be harmful, indicating altered behaviours and potentially increasing the rate of fights between individuals over food. This is of particular concern for a species at risk of extinction due to a deadly cancer primarily transmitted through aggressive interactions. The lack of diversity in devil diets within regenerated native forest compared to those in old-growth rainforest also indicates the conservation value of the latter for both the devil and the species which they consume.

Indexed as

MammalsMarsupialiaAnimalsDietFishesFoodForestsHumans

Identifiers

PMID36869089
PMCPMC9984462

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.