ArticleEcological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America2025
Density-dependent resource partitioning of temperate large herbivore populations under rewilding.
Article in Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America, 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.
- Density-dependent resource partitioning of temperate large herbivore populations under rewilding.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 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
In tropical grazer assemblies with abundant large predators, smaller herbivores have been shown to be limited by predation and food quality, while the larger species are regulated by food abundance. Much less is known about herbivore resource partitioning in temperate grazing ecosystems, where humans typically regulate large animal abundances. The Oostvaardersplassen ecosystem in the Netherlands is a unique multispecies assemblage of cattle, horses, red deer, and geese developed after the initial introduction of a few individuals in 1983. During the first 35 years, this herbivore assemblage without predation or human regulation gradually changed into an increasing dominance of the smaller herbivore species. Carrying capacity was reached around 2008, after which numbers started fluctuating depending on winter conditions. From 2018, management changed and population numbers became regulated for biodiversity and animal welfare reasons; however, population numbers still remained close to carrying capacity for several years. We used eDNA metabarcoding of dung to quantify the diet composition of cattle, horses, red deer, and geese, annually in early winter from 2018 to 2021 and calculated their niche overlap. We found strong interspecific diet overlap. Horse and cattle diets remained mostly stable with fluctuating densities of the different species, while only red deer diet showed density dependence. Interspecific niche overlap decreased with increasing red deer population size, the most abundant species. When calculated as total energy expenditure, we found that niche overlap was more linked to red deer abundance than to total herbivore energy intake. We suggest that red deer changed their diet mainly in response to their own population size, reducing their niche overlap in relation to their population increase. In this case, resource competition reduced resource availability and forced herbivores to consume different plant taxa. We conclude that in this predator-free temperate ecosystem, inter- and intraspecific resource competition are key factors structuring this assemblage of different size herbivores. We find a general competitive advantage of the more diet-flexible red deer over horses and cattle, but with also clear signs of resource partitioning.
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.