Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38034341›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2023

Eat or be eaten: Implications of potential exploitative competition between wolves and humans across predator-savvy and predator-naive deer populations.

Ellen M Candler, Stotra Chakrabarti, William J Severud, Joseph K Bump

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 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
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ellen M CandlerFisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology University of Minnesota St. Paul Minnesota USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5810-1942
Stotra ChakrabartiDepartment of Biology Macalester College St. Paul Minnesota USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8741-4780
William J SeverudDepartment of Natural Resource Management South Dakota State University Brookings South Dakota USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0150-5986
Joseph K BumpFisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology University of Minnesota St. Paul Minnesota USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4369-7990
University of Minnesota · USMacalester College · USSouth Dakota State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recolonization of predators to their former ranges is becoming increasingly prevalent. Such recolonization places predators among their prey once again; the latter having lived without predation (from such predators) for a considerable time. This renewed coexistence creates opportunities to explore predation ecology at both fundamental and applied levels. We used a paired experimental design to investigate white-tailed deer risk allocation in the Upper and Lower Peninsulas (UP and LP) in Michigan, USA. Wolves are functionally absent in the LP, while deer in the UP coexist with a re-established wolf population. We treated 15 sites each in UP and LP with wolf olfactory cues and observed deer vigilance, activity, and visitation rates at the interface of habitat covariates using remote cameras. Such a paired design across wolf versus no-wolf areas allowed us to examine indirect predation effects while accounting for confounding parameters such as the presence of other predators and human activity. While wolf urine had no effect across most metrics in both UP and LP, we observed differences in deer activity in areas with versus without wolves. Sites treated with wolf urine in the UP showed a reduction in crepuscular deer activity, compared to control/novel-scent treated sites. Furthermore, we observed a strong positive effect of vegetation cover on deer vigilance in these sites. This indicates that simulated predator cues likely affect deer vigilance more acutely in denser habitats, which presumably facilitates predation success. Such responses were however absent among deer in the LP that are presumably naïve toward wolf predation. Where human and non-human predators hunt shared prey, such as in Michigan, predators may constrain human hunting success by increasing deer vigilance. Hunters may avoid such exploitative competition by choosing hunting/bait sites located in open areas. Our results pertaining to fundamental predation ecology have strong applied implications that can promote human-predator coexistence.

Indexed as

behavioral manipulationhuman–wildlife conflictolfactory cuesoptimal foragingpredator–prey interactionspredator recolonizationpredator reintroduction

Identifiers

PMID38034341
PMCPMC10682566
OpenAlexW4389090632

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.