The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Diet, Morphology, and Interspecific Killing in Carnivora
Abstract
Interspecific killing is a key determinant of the abundances and distributions of carnivores, their prey, and nonprey community members. Similarity of body size has been proposed to lead competitors to seek similar prey, which increases the likelihood of interference encounters, including lethal ones. We explored the influence of body size, diet, predatory habits, and taxonomic relatedness on interspecific killing. The frequency of attacks depends on differences in body size: at small and large differences, attacks are less likely to occur; at intermediate differences, killing interactions are frequent and related to diet overlap. Further, the importance of interspecific killing as a mortality factor in the victim population increases with an increase in body size differences between killers and victims. Carnivores highly adapted to kill vertebrate prey are more prone to killing interactions, usually with animals of similar predatory habits. Family-level taxonomy influences killing interactions; carnivores tend to interact more with species in the same family than with species in different families. We conclude that although resource exploitation (diet), predatory habits, and taxonomy are influential in predisposing carnivores to attack each other, relative body size of the participants is overwhelmingly important. We discuss the implications of interspecific killing for body size and the dynamics of geographic ranges.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system
Crooks, K. R., & Soulé, M. E. (1999) · Nature · doi:10.1038/23028 · Cited by 1,721
Competition and intraguild predation among three sympatric carnivores
Fedriani, J. M., Fuller, T. K., Sauvajot, R. M., & York, E. C. (2000) · Oecologia · doi:10.1007/s004420000448 · Cited by 463
Resource partitioning among British and Irish mustelids
McDonald, R. A. (2002) · Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2656.2002.00588.x · Cited by 154
Cited by
Predator interactions, mesopredator release and biodiversity conservation.
Ritchie, E. G., & Johnson, C. N. (2009) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01347.x · Cited by 1,375
Top predators as biodiversity regulators: the dingo Canis lupus dingo as a case study
Letnic, M., Ritchie, E. G., & Dickman, C. R. (2012) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.2011.00203.x · Cited by 331
Widespread mesopredator effects after wolf extirpation
Ripple, W. J., Wirsing, A. J., Wilmers, C. C., & Letnic, M. (2013) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2012.12.033 · Cited by 179
Lourenço, R., Penteriani, V., Rabaça, J. E., & Korpimäki, E. (2014) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/brv.12054 · Cited by 86
Carnivore carcasses are avoided by carnivores
Moleón, M., Martínez‐Carrasco, C., Muellerklein, O. C., Getz, W. M., Muñoz‐Lozano, C., & Sánchez‐Zapata, J. A. (2017) · Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2656.12714 · Cited by 75
Metadata
- Authors
- Donadio, E., & Buskirk, S. W.
- Venue
- The American Naturalist
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2006-04
- Volume
- 167
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 524-536
- ISSN
- 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5323
- OpenAlex
- W2143699807
- Cited by
- 556
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 9.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Diet, Morphology, and Interspecific Killing in Carnivora. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/501033
- The paper
- Donadio, E., & Buskirk, S. W. (2006). Diet, Morphology, and Interspecific Killing in Carnivora. The American Naturalist. https://doi.org/10.1086/501033
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.