Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40155462›Full record

ArticleCommunications biology2025

Prey size mediates interference competition and predation dynamics in a large carnivore community.

Jack W Rabe, Wesley J Binder, Colby B Anton, Connor J Meyer, Matthew C Metz, Brian J Smith, Toni K Ruth, Kerry M Murphy, Joseph K Bump, Douglas W Smith and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Competing like cats and dogs: Cougars lose their hard-won prey to wolves.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Diets, dominance hierarchies, and kleptoparasitism drive asymmetrical interactions between wolves and cougars.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

11 authors.

Jack W RabeDepartment of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, Saint Paul, MN, USA. rabe0092@umn.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3227-2484
Wesley J BinderYellowstone Center for Resources, Yellowstone National Park, Mammoth Hot Springs, WY, USA.
Colby B AntonMontana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Missoula, MT, USA.
Connor J MeyerWildlife Biology Program, Department of Ecosystem and Conservation Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, USA.
Matthew C MetzYellowstone Center for Resources, Yellowstone National Park, Mammoth Hot Springs, WY, USA.
Brian J SmithDepartment of Wildland Resources and Ecology Center, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA.
Toni K RuthIdaho Conservation Program, The Nature Conservancy, Hailey, ID, USA.
Kerry M MurphyBridger-Teton National Forest, US Forest Service, Jackson, WY, USA.
Joseph K BumpDepartment of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, Saint Paul, MN, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4369-7990
Douglas W SmithYellowstone Center for Resources, Yellowstone National Park, Mammoth Hot Springs, WY, USA.
Daniel R StahlerYellowstone Center for Resources, Yellowstone National Park, Mammoth Hot Springs, WY, USA.

Funding

National Science Foundation (NSF) 1556676
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Direct competition for resources is especially fierce among predators, leading to disproportionately strong effects on fitness and functional roles. These competitive effects are exacerbated in complex predator guilds with dominance hierarchies that have clear winners and losers. The direct costs of losing these competitions are well understood, but the drivers of such interactions, and their indirect effects on prey, are not. We evaluate the drivers of interference competition for cougars, and how such competition affects cougar-prey dynamics, by leveraging 23 years of cougar predation data from Yellowstone National Park, USA. We show that the effect of prey size is context-dependent, negatively affecting how often cougars kill ungulate prey but positively affecting how often wolves/bears find and steal cougar kills. Further, cougars increasingly kill smaller prey as larger, primary prey density decreases. Handling time is shorter for smaller prey, leading to less kleptoparasitism by wolves and bears when primary prey density is lower. Our study counters the theory suggesting that interference competition should increase at kills when prey density declines, interspecific competitor density increases, or kill rates increase. We demonstrate that predator, competitor, and prey traits drive the strength of and even dampen interference competition, possibly increasing coexistence in complex communities.

Indexed as

CarnivoraCompetitive BehaviorFood ChainPredatory BehaviorAnimalsPopulation DensityPopulation DynamicsWolves

Identifiers

PMID40155462
PMCPMC11953360

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.