Cited by 174Wildlife Ecology and ConservationAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesRangeland and Wildlife Management

The Comparative Effects of Large Carnivores on the Acquisition of Carrion by Scavengers

Open access
Allen, Maximilian L., Elbroch, L. Mark, Wilmers, Christopher C., Wittmer, Heiko U.·2015·The American Naturalist

Abstract

Pumas (Puma concolor) and black bears (Ursus americanus) are large carnivores that may influence scavenger population dynamics. We used motion-triggered video cameras deployed at deer carcasses to determine how pumas and black bears affected three aspects of carrion acquisition by scavengers: presence, total feeding time, and mean feeding-bout duration. We found that pumas were unable to limit acquisition of carrion by large carnivores but did limit aspects of carrion acquisition by both birds and mesocarnivores. Through their suppression of mesocarnivores and birds, pumas apparently initiated a cascading pattern and increased carrion acquisition by small carnivores. In contrast, black bears monopolized carrion resources and generally had larger limiting effects on carrion acquisition by all scavengers. Black bears also limited puma feeding behaviors at puma kills, which may require pumas to compensate for energetic losses through increasing their kill rates of ungulates. Our results suggest that pumas provide carrion and selectively influence species acquiring carrion, while black bears limit carrion availability to all other scavengers. These results suggest that the effects of large carnivores on scavengers depend on attributes of both carnivores and scavengers (including size) and that competition for carcasses may result in intraguild predation as well as mesocarnivore release.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/681004

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Cougar behavior of concealing kills by dragging them to thicker cover and caching kills under debris minimizes detection and utilization by ravens.

    “This, coupled with cougar behavior of concealing kills by dragging them to thicker cover and caching kills under debris such as grass, hair, sticks, and snow minimizes detection and utilization by ravens (Allen et al., 2015; Ruth & Murphy, 2010; Ruth et al., in press)”

    From Population responses of common ravens to reintroduced gray wolves (2018) · cites this paper as Allen et al., 2015

    The 'Mountain Lion Effects on Scavenger Classes' section discusses varied effects on scavengers, and 'Detection of Carcasses by Bears' reports bear detection time. Neither addresses cougars dragging or caching kills, or whether those behaviors reduce raven detection and use. Searches for ravens, caching, and cover found no passage on that point; the indexed passages provide no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 42 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Allen, M. L., Elbroch, L. M., Wilmers, C. C., & Wittmer, H. U.
Affiliations
  • Victoria University of Wellington (NZ)
  • Panthera Corporation (US)
  • University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
Venue
The American Naturalist
Published
2015-06
Volume
185
Issue
6
Pages
822-833
ISSN
  • 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5323
OpenAlex
W1985879817
Cited by
174
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
FWCI
8.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The American Naturalist (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
Keywords
large carnivores, scavengers, PUMA, Ursus americanus, mesocarnivores, birds, intraguild predation, feeding behavior, cascading effects, resource monopolization
MeSH terms
Animals, Ursidae, Birds, Competitive Behavior, Deer, Feeding Behavior, Predatory Behavior, Food Chain, Puma

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