ReviewBiological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society2026
The influence of rivers on seabird foraging ecology.
Review in Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Rivers act as vital arteries to the world's oceans, delivering fresh water and nutrients that sustain marine ecosystems. Globally, river flow increasingly is being altered by climate change and anthropogenic pressures; yet the significance of rivers to predatory marine species, such as seabirds, and the extent to which river-related changes affect their food webs, remains poorly understood. This review synthesises 51 studies specifically designed to examine river influences on seabird habitat selection, diet, health, and demographics, while highlighting methodological approaches and ecological patterns. Although river-related variables remain underutilised in seabird research, 88% (45/51) of studies that included them reported clear evidence of river effects for at least one type of seabird response, suggesting these ecological links are under-recognised rather than absent. When selected as the primary explanatory (most informative) variable in each study, plume-based metrics were conclusive in 95% (19/20) of cases, whereas river-specific metrics (namely number of rivers, river outflow and distance to river mouths) were conclusive in 84% (26/31) of cases, confirming that both metric types are highly reliable once aligned with the seabird response in question. River-influenced coastal waters consistently supported critical foraging hotspots across all seabird orders, whilst also exposing birds to potential pollutant burdens and altered prey dynamics. Seabird dietary data are a valuable indicator of prey variability associated with river outflows, with greater prey diversity recorded in estuarine habitats compared to marine ones. Rivers exhibited mixed effects under anthropogenic pressures but generally positive influences during climate disturbances, suggesting that seabirds may increasingly depend on riverine environments as buffers against changing marine conditions. We recommend expanding investigations into river impacts on seabird health in tropical systems, incorporating long-term hydrological influences, and prioritising the integration of river-specific and oceanographic data to predict seabird responses more effectively in a rapidly changing world.
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.