ArticleBiological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society2025
Threatened synanthropes depend on intact forests: a critical evaluation of Moore et al. (2023).
Article in Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Behavioral Variability of Endangered Northern Pig-Tailed Macaques in a Degraded Mosaic Habitat in Northeast Bangladesh.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Synanthropes are known for their remarkable adaptability to coexist with humans, yet increased visibility exposes them to significant threats, such as hunting or conflict over resources. Moore et al.'s review 'The rise of hyperabundant native generalists threatens both humans and nature' (https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12985) explores distribution patterns and impacts of macaques and pigs in anthropogenic environments. Our critical evaluation of this study revealed several substantial issues: the pooling of data from species that are ecologically and behaviourally distinct, an error in data acquisition, potential biases in statistical analyses, and critical misrepresentations of threats to and from wildlife in human-impacted habitats. Additionally, we highlight the lack of evidence supporting the authors' core assertion of hyperabundance of the study species. While Moore et al. compare species densities and abundance across various habitat types, their analyses did not demonstrate population increases over time. On the contrary, our re-analysis of their data sets showed a decreasing population trend in Macaca nemestrina and the absence of M. fascicularis from 44% of surveyed habitats characterized by medium to high forest integrity. Further, our findings emphasize the importance of intact forests for predicting a high relative abundance of macaques and pigs. Overall, we recommend a more careful interpretation of the data, as misrepresentations of abundance data can result in negative or sensational discourses about overabundance, which may threaten the conservation of species that often thrive in anthropogenic landscapes.
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.