SynthesisProceedings. Biological sciences2024
No evidence for the consistent effect of supplementary feeding on home range size in terrestrial mammals.
Synthesis in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- No evidence for the consistent effect of supplementary feeding on home range size in terrestrial mammals.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024Pooled it
- Empirical evidence that diversionary feeding increases productivity in ground-nesting birds.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Food availability and distribution are key drivers of animal space use. Supplemental food provided by humans can be more abundant and predictable than natural resources. It is thus believed that supplementary feeding modifies the spatial behaviour of wildlife. Yet, such effects have not been tested quantitatively across species. Here, we analysed changes in home range size owing to supplementary feeding in 23 species of terrestrial mammals using a meta-analysis of 28 studies. Additionally, we investigated the moderating effect of factors related to (i) species biology (sex, body mass and taxonomic group), (ii) feeding regimen (duration, amount and purpose), and (iii) methods of data collection and analysis (source of data, estimator and spatial confinement). We found no consistent effect of supplementary feeding on changes in home range size. While an overall tendency of reduced home range was observed, moderators varied in the direction and strength of the trends. Our results suggest that multiple drivers and complex mechanisms of home range behaviour can make it insensitive to manipulation with supplementary feeding. The small number of available studies stands in contrast with the ubiquity and magnitude of supplementary feeding worldwide, highlighting a knowledge gap in our understanding of the effects of supplementary feeding on ranging behaviour.
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.