Forage Species and Nutrition Among Reintroduced Banteng (

Wasinee Thepapichaikul, Rattanawat Chaiyarat, Roschong Boonyarittichaikij, Phanwimol Tanhan, Seree Nakbun

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2026. 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

5 authors.

Wasinee ThepapichaikulMaster of Science Program in Appropriate Technology and Innovation for Environment, Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies Mahidol University Salaya Nakhon Pathom Thailand.

Rattanawat ChaiyaratWildlife and Plant Research Center, Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies Mahidol University Salaya Nakhon Pathom Thailand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1984-5236

Roschong BoonyarittichaikijWildlife and Exotic Animal Studies, Faculty of Veterinary Science Mahidol University Salaya Nakhon Pathom Thailand.

Phanwimol TanhanDepartment of Pharmacology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Kasetsart University Bangkhen Bangkok Thailand.

Seree NakbunDepartment of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation Khao Nam Phu Nature and Wildlife Education Center Sri Sawat Kanchanaburi Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dietary management is an important factor affecting the health and survival of critically endangered wildlife-such as banteng recently reintroduced into Salakphra Wildlife Sanctuary (SWS) and Khao Kiew-Khao Chompoo Wildlife Sanctuary (KKKC). This study investigates the diversity and nutritional composition of forage consumed by different reintroduced banteng practices in these two protected areas. The research was conducted between November 2023 and October 2024 using fecal analysis and mineral composition assessments. A total of 59 forage species (51 consumed in the wet season, 35 in the dry season) were identified in banteng feces in SWS. These 59 species consisted of 29 monocotyledons (49.15%) and 30 dicotyledons (50.85%). The most preferred species found in banteng diets in the dry and wet seasons were

Indexed as

Bantengfecal analysisforagenichenutritionreintroduction

Identifiers

PMID41939990

DOI10.1002/ece3.73401

PMCPMC13045356

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.