Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39308819›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2024

Comparison of hunting site strategies of the common buzzard

Paweł Cieśluk, Federico Morelli, Zbigniew Kasprzykowski

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Paweł CieślukFaculty of Sciences, University of Siedlce, Siedlce, Poland.
Federico MorelliCommunity Ecology & Conservation, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0003-1099-1357
Zbigniew KasprzykowskiFaculty of Sciences, University of Siedlce, Siedlce, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The expansion of human activities in their many forms increases the frequency, diversity, and scale of human-wildlife interactions. One such negative form is the expansion of road infrastructure, causing road kill and traffic-related noise as well as habitat loss and fragmentation. Even so, habitats around road infrastructure are attractive foraging areas that attract certain bird species. We assessed the impact of road infrastructure on the foraging strategies of the common buzzard Methods: Birds were observed during two winter seasons in two land-use types, along an expressway and an open agricultural landscape. Individual birds were tracked for a 10-min sequence as a separate sample was analysed. The material, covering 1,220 min along the expressway, and 1,100 min in the agricultural landscape, was collected. Results: Time spent by buzzards on medium-height sites was higher along the expressway than in farmland. Buzzards changed their hunting sites following the mean wind speed. Also, they more often changed their sites along the expressway than in farmland. The land-use types, snow cover, and the mean wind speed mediated the number of attacks on prey. These results illustrate the high plasticity of the buzzards' behaviour, which can adapt their hunting strategies to both foraging locations (expressway and farmland) and weather conditions. Roadsides along expressways are attractive foraging areas for this diurnal raptor, so reducing the risk of vehicle collisions with this and other birds of prey may require targeted planning efforts.

Indexed as

FalconiformesPredatory BehaviorAgricultureAnimalsEcosystemSeasonsBirds of preyForaging strategyHuman pressureHunting siteNon-breeding seasonWeather parameters

Identifiers

PMID39308819
PMCPMC11416756

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.