Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38003136›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2023

In Situ Provisioning Wildlife with Food, Water, or Shelter after Bushfires: Using a One Welfare Framework to Guide Responses.

Bidda Jones, Catherine Herbert, Samantha Finnerty, Brooke Kennedy, Amy Lykins, John M Martin, Phil McManus, David Raubenheimer, Michelle Shaw, Paul D McGreevy

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. One welfare: bibliometric review of world literature.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025
    Review
  3. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Bidda JonesSchool of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Catherine HerbertSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0174-0898
Samantha FinnertySchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Brooke KennedySchool of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2353, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1337-9705
Amy LykinsSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2353, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2930-3964
John M MartinSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2731-9292
Phil McManusSchool of Geosciences, Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3655-3841
David RaubenheimerSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Michelle ShawWelfare, Conservation and Science, Taronga Conservation Society Australia, Mosman, NSW 2088, Australia.
Paul D McGreevySchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7220-8378
The University of Sydney · AUUniversity of New England · AUTaronga Conservation Society Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Australia's 2019-2020 bushfires had a devastating impact on animals, humans, and ecosystems. They also demonstrated the lack of evidence or guidance for wildlife provisioning in response to severe fire events when volunteers and wildlife organisations rose to respond. In addition, the unprecedented scale and intensity of the fires and an absence of institutional support for wildlife provisioning meant that well-intentioned interventions were largely uncoordinated and lacked clear short-term, mid-term, and long-term objectives. Fundamentally, a lack of consensus was revealed on whether any such interventions are advisable. Given the strong evidence indicating that future bushfire seasons will become longer and more intense in Australia and elsewhere, the welfare and survival of millions of wild animals are at risk every year. Understanding the impacts of supplementary resource interventions and contributing to the development of best practice information is crucial to inform the response to the next major fire event. Here, we contextualize the arguments for and against provisioning within a 'One Welfare' framework that recognizes that animal welfare, biodiversity, and the environment are intertwined with human welfare and community resilience. We propose that the One Welfare approach can facilitate appropriate consideration of the extant scientific and lay literature; local legislation; views of stakeholders; emerging data; and modelling from historic fire events. As a further step, we see merit in engaging with wildlife provisioners and the broader conservation community to build an evidence base for future wildlife provisioning activities. From an informed position, we can encourage beneficial interventions and reduce the risk of negative outcomes. Finally, we propose controlled experiments (e.g., using hazard reduction burns), ongoing data collection using emergent technology, and longitudinal analysis to address shifting research priorities as the climate changes. We conclude that the ordered collection of the necessary evidence relevant to each of the three stakeholder groups in the One Welfare framework has the greatest potential to support an informed policy platform on wildlife provisioning across Australia that is feasible, legal, and sustainable.

Indexed as

community motivationsfirenatural disasternutritionshelterwater

Identifiers

PMID38003136
PMCPMC10668798
OpenAlexW4388672149

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.