Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42418406›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Gray Wolf Diet Composition in California's Human-Dominated Landscape.

Tina L Saitone, Kenneth W Tate, Benjamin J Sacks

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 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

3 authors.

Tina L SaitoneDepartment of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis, California, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3934-2409
Kenneth W TateDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, California, United States of America.
Benjamin J SacksDepartment of Population Health and Reproduction, Veterinary Genetics Laboratory, University of California, Davis, California, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0143-6589

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gray wolves have successfully recolonized much of their historical range on multiple continents, now occupying landscapes substantially altered during their absence. Wolf ecological function in human-modified landscapes remains poorly understood, fueling conflict concerns among rural stakeholders and conservation advocates over predation on economically valuable livestock and wildlife. Dietary studies can facilitate prediction of ecological impacts and help avoid outcomes that undermine human-wolf coexistence and conservation objectives. This study addresses a critical gap in dietary research of a recolonizing population of wolves in California, USA, representing the first investigation employing genetic identification of species and individuals combined with DNA metabarcoding for diet determination in scat samples. Our findings indicate that cattle dominated wolf diet, occurring in 72% of samples during the study period, compared to mule deer, which occurred in 45% of samples and small mammals that appeared in 51% of samples. Dietary biomass estimates corroborated cattle as the principal dietary component accounting for an average of 55%, while mule deer and small mammals each contributed considerably smaller proportions, 12% and 15%, respectively. These results revealed that wolves in California's human-modified landscape primarily satisfy their caloric requirements through livestock consumption, underscoring the considerable challenges posed by coexistence of wolves and humans within the state.

Indexed as

DietWolvesAnimalsCaliforniaCattleConservation of Natural ResourcesDeerEcosystemHumans

Identifiers

PMID42418406
PMCPMC13345248

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.