Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40683925›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Investigating the effects of red fox management on poultry beyond the controversy, Jura Massif, France.

Didier Pépin, Pierre Feuvrier, Thibaut Powolny, Patrick Giraudoux

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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

4 authors.

Didier PépinFrance Nature Environnement 25, Maison de l'Environnement, 25000, Besançon, France.
Pierre FeuvrierFédération départementale des chasseurs du Doubs, 25360, Gonsans, France.
Thibaut PowolnyFédération départementale des chasseurs du Doubs, 25360, Gonsans, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6580-9853
Patrick GiraudouxChrono-Environnement, Université Marie et Louis Pasteur/CNRS, 25030, Besançon, France. patrick.giraudoux@univ-fcomte.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2376-0136

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The red fox (Vulpes vulpes) is one of the most common generalist mesopredators. Its legal status is often at the centre of controversy between those who wish to protect it and those who wish to control its numbers. In France, foxes are legally hunted and can also be classified as a "species likely to cause damage" (ESOD), the latter status allowing them to be shot and trapped throughout the year. There are a number of legal reasons for this, including damage to poultry. Here, we report the results of a 3.8-year experiment comparing two areas where the fox is protected with areas where it is classified as ESOD. Fox populations were monitored for 4 years before and during the experiment and 231 henhouses were surveyed. 1105 birds were predated in 109 of the 231 henhouses, with an average permanent poultry population of 10,883. 48.3% of damage could be attributed to the category 'fox' or 'likely fox'. Our results show that ESOD status, in the local context, did not lead to a significant reduction in fox numbers or differences in damage rates between areas. However, top and bottom fence protection of outdoor runs significantly reduced fox predation. Better protection for poultry should come from increased security of sheds and outdoor runs, rather than from management of the fox population. The role of dedicated multi-stakeholder working groups for such an evidence-based management at local level is also discussed.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesFoxesPoultryAnimalsFrancePredatory BehaviorAdaptive managementFox cullingMulti-stakeholders working groupPest controlResearch-actionWildlife–human conflicts

Identifiers

PMID40683925
PMCPMC12276238

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.