ArticleRoyal Society open science2023
Does artificial feeding impact neonate growth rates in a large free-ranging mammal?
Article in Royal Society open science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Do human-wildlife interactions predict offspring hiding strategies in peri-urban fallow deer?Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Does artificial feeding impact neonate growth rates in a large free-ranging mammal?Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Approaching humans for food is a behavior transmitted from mothers to offspring in a large herbivore.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral EcologyArticle
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Variation and disparity in resource access between individuals in an animal population within human-dominated landscapes require attention as artificial selection processes may be at work. Independent, recreational human-wildlife feeding interactions constitute an increasingly prevalent, yet understudied, food resource for birds and mammals living in our cities. However, only a limited number of risk-taking individuals may access it. Using urban fallow deer as our model species, we hypothesized that if these interactions result in positive effects for the engaging individual, e.g. increased milk quality and yield, then this would result in the increased growth rates of their offspring. Alternatively, if these individuals were prioritizing investing time in engagement with humans, resulting in decreased maternal care, then this would result in slower growth rates in their offspring. We found that the offspring of those females that regularly interacted with humans displayed significantly faster growth rates than their risk-adverse counterparts. This advantage for fearless mothers in terms of boosted neonatal growth rates could be mirrored in birds accessing garden feeders, seagulls or pigeons utilizing urban resources, or seals approaching city harbours. Here, we add a new piece to the complex puzzle of how humans are impacting wildlife living within human-dominated landscapes.
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.