ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2025
Empirical evidence that diversionary feeding increases productivity in ground-nesting birds.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- 2025 joint BMC ecology and evolution and BMC zoology image competition: the winning images.BMC ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The recovery of predator populations may negatively impact other species of conservation concern, leading to conservation conflicts. Evidence-based solutions are needed to resolve such conflicts. Robust, large-scale field experiments provide the most rigorous evidence to justify new forms of intervention. Still, they are hard to implement and often call for indirect and non-invasive monitoring. In this study, we used camera traps to experimentally evaluate diversionary feeding to reduce conservation conflict and non-invasively monitor capercaillie hen productivity over 3 years under a randomized control (unfed) and treatment (fed) design. Diversionary feeding significantly increased the probability that a detected hen would have a brood. Brood size decreased over time, but the change did not differ between fed and unfed treatments. Importantly, the increased chance of having a brood with diversionary feeding substantially increases overall productivity at the end of the sampling season. This was just 0.82 (0.35-1.29) chicks per hen without diversionary feeding, and more than doubled to 1.90 (1.24-2.55) with diversionary feeding. This study provides compelling empirical evidence that diversionary feeding positively affects productivity, offering an effective non-lethal solution to the increasingly common conservation conflict where both predator and prey are afforded protection.
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.