Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38037089›Full record

ArticleMovement ecology2023

Individual-level patterns of resource selection do not predict hotspots of contact.

Anni Yang, Raoul Boughton, Ryan S Miller, Nathan P Snow, Kurt C Vercauteren, Kim M Pepin, George Wittemyer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Movement ecology, 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
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Anni YangDepartment of Geography and Environmental Sustainability, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, 73019, USA. anni.yang@ou.edu.
Raoul BoughtonArchbold Biological Station, Buck Island Ranch, Lake Placid, FL, 33852, USA.
Ryan S MillerUnited States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Veterinary Service, Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health, 2150 Centre Avenue, Fort Collins, CO, 80526, USA.
Nathan P SnowUnited States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, National Wildlife Research Center, Wildlife Services, Fort Collins, CO, 80521, USA.
Kurt C VercauterenUnited States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, National Wildlife Research Center, Wildlife Services, Fort Collins, CO, 80521, USA.
Kim M PepinUnited States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, National Wildlife Research Center, Wildlife Services, Fort Collins, CO, 80521, USA.
George WittemyerDepartment of Fish, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 80523, USA.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service · USArchbold Biological Station · USCenter for Epidemiology and Animal Health · USColorado State University · USUniversity of Oklahoma · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Contact among animals is crucial for various ecological processes, including social behaviors, disease transmission, and predator-prey interactions. However, the distribution of contact events across time and space is heterogeneous, influenced by environmental factors and biological purposes. Previous studies have assumed that areas with abundant resources and preferred habitats attract more individuals and, therefore, lead to more contact. To examine the accuracy of this assumption, we used a use-available framework to compare landscape factors influencing the location of contacts between wild pigs (Sus scrofa) in two study areas in Florida and Texas (USA) from those influencing non-contact space use. We employed a contact-resource selection function (RSF) model, where contact locations were defined as used points and locations without contact as available points. By comparing outputs from this contact RSF with a general, population-level RSF, we assessed the factors driving both habitat selection and contact. We found that the landscape predictors (e.g., wetland, linear features, and food resources) played different roles in habitat selection from contact processes for wild pigs in both study areas. This indicated that pigs interacted with their landscapes differently when choosing habitats compared to when they encountered other individuals. Consequently, relying solely on the spatial overlap of individual or population-level RSF models may lead to a misleading understanding of contact-related ecology. Our findings challenge prevailing assumptions about contact and introduce innovative approaches to better understand the ecological drivers of spatially explicit contact. By accurately predicting the spatial distribution of contact events, we can enhance our understanding of contact based ecological processes and their spatial dynamics.

Indexed as

Resource-driven contactResource selectionSpatial contactWild pigs

Identifiers

PMID38037089
PMCPMC10687890
OpenAlexW4389199263

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.