Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39444510›Full record

ArticleBioscience2024

Improving wild animal welfare through contraception.

Simon Eckerström Liedholm, Luke Hecht, Vittoria Elliott

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioscience, 2024. 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
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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.

Simon Eckerström LiedholmWild Animal Initiative, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3705-1907
Luke HechtWild Animal Initiative, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3884-4885
Vittoria ElliottWild Animal Initiative, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8230-489X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To date, research on the welfare impacts of wildlife contraceptives has mostly been focused on the potential harms of contraceptives. However, there are compelling theoretical reasons to expect direct and indirect welfare benefits of wildlife contraceptives. These positive welfare effects would be experienced by more than just the treated individuals, because per capita resource availability will increase with decreasing numbers of individuals sharing a resource. In the present article, we discuss the potential for wildlife contraceptives to alleviate resource competition and their associated negative welfare effects at different scales. These effects are expected to vary across contexts and would presumably be stronger when wildlife contraceptives are used with the explicit purpose of improving wild animal welfare. The potential for considerable welfare gains for wildlife through the targeted use of contraceptives highlights the importance of both species-specific studies on the welfare benefits of wildlife contraceptives and further research on the links between population dynamics and wild animal welfare.

Indexed as

density dependenceecological feedbackfertility controlpopulation dynamicspopulation management

Identifiers

PMID39444510
PMCPMC11494473

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.