ArticleScientific reports2025
Investigating the effects of red fox management on poultry beyond the controversy, Jura Massif, France.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.