CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 42

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Contrasting effects of human settlement on the interaction among sympatric apex carnivores

Penjor, Ugyen, Astaras, Christos, Cushman, Samuel A., Kaszta, Żaneta, Macdonald, David W.·2022·Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
DOI 10.1098/rspb.2021.2681PMC PMC9043700
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In the face of a growing human footprint, understanding interactions among threatened large carnivores is fundamental to effectively mitigating anthropogenic threats and managing species. Using data from a large-scale camera trap survey, we investigated the effects of environmental and anthropogenic variables on the interspecific interaction of a carnivore guild comprising of tiger, leopard and dhole in Bhutan. We demonstrate the complex effects of human settlement density on large carnivore interactions. Specifically, we demonstrate that leopard–dhole co-occupancy probability was higher in areas with higher human settlement density. The opposite was true for tiger–leopard co-occupancy probability, but it was positively affected by large prey (gaur) abundance. These findings suggest that multi-carnivore communities across land-use gradients are spatially structured and mediated also by human presence and/or the availability of natural prey. Our findings show that space-use patterns are driven by a combination of the behavioural mechanism of each species and its interactions with competing species. The duality of the effect of settlement density on species interactions suggests that the benefits of exploiting anthropogenic environments are a trade-off between ecological opportunity (food subsidies or easy prey) and the risk of escalating conflict with humans.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rspb.2021.2681

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

  • Human presence has varied effects on movement patterns and potentially substantial impact on connectivity predictions.

    “Emerging studies empirically demonstrate the varied effects of human presence on movement patterns and their potentially substantial impact on connectivity predictions52–54.”

    From Connectivity modelling in conservation science: a comparative evaluation (2022) · cites this paper as [53]

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 74

  1. 10.1146/annurev.es.20.110189.001501 · DOI
  2. 10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00177-5 · DOI
  3. 10.1002/ece3.2569 · DOI
  4. 10.1016/0169-5347(92)90208-S · DOI
  5. 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01520.x · DOI
  6. 10.1016/j.tree.2015.09.012 · DOI
  7. 10.1111/brv.12635 · DOI
  8. 10.1126/science.aau3561 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.12.016 · DOI
  10. 10.1098/rspb.2016.1860 · DOI
  11. 10.1111/acv.12662 · DOI
  12. 10.1086/282505 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1098/rstb.2009.0155 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1101/SQB.1957.022.01.039 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.2307/3545168 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1086/303189 · DOI
  17. 10.1086/718472 · DOI
  18. 10.1890/13-0217.1 · DOI
  19. 10.1111/jzo.12202 · DOI
  20. 10.2307/1934797 · DOI
  21. 10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[1169:IHIEOA]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  22. 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.05.007 · DOI
  23. 10.1038/23028 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1007/s10531-017-1491-9 · DOI
  25. 10.2981/wlb.00326 · DOI
  26. 10.1644/09-MAMM-A-312.1 · DOI
  27. 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01255.x · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.1111/brv.12004 · DOI
  29. IUCN. 2021 The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. In: 2021-2 V. (ed.). See https://www.iucnredlist.org.
  30. 10.2307/5647 · DOI · Paper page
  31. NSB. 2020 Statistical yearbook of Bhutan 2020, Thimphu, Bhutan: National Statistics Bureau.
  32. 10.1038/35002501 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Karanth KU, Nichols JD. 2002 Monitoring tigers and their prey: a manual for wildlife researchers, managers and conservationists in tropical Asia. Bangalore, India: Centre for Wildlife Studies.
  34. ESRI. 2011 ArcGIS desktop: release 10.2. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute.
  35. 10.1126/science.1244693 · DOI · Paper page
  36. 10.1093/jmammal/gyab068 · DOI
  37. 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2008.00537.x · DOI
  38. 10.1644/11-MAMM-A-241.1 · DOI
  39. 10.1111/jzo.12171 · DOI
  40. 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2004.00142.x · DOI
  41. 10.18637/jss.v043.i10 · DOI
  42. R Core Team. 2021 R: a language and environment for statistical computing (version 4.1.2). Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
  43. 10.1890/15-1193.1 · DOI
  44. 10.1111/j.0021-8790.2004.00828.x · DOI
  45. 10.1890/14-0661.1 · DOI
  46. Kéry M, Royle J. 2016 Applied hierarchical modeling in ecology: analysis of distribution, abundance and species richness in R and BUGS, 1st edn. London, UK: Academic Press.
  47. Plummer M. 2003 JAGS: a program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. In Proc. of the 3rd Int. Workshop on Distributed Statistical Computing 2003 . Vienna Austria 1–10.
  48. Francis C. 2009 A guide to the mammals of Southeast Asia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  49. 10.1111/1365-2664.13385 · DOI
  50. 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.01.015 · DOI
  51. 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1995.tb05014.x · DOI
  52. 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.11.024 · DOI
  53. 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.02.027 · DOI
  54. 10.1071/WR14013 · DOI
  55. Wangchuk T. 2004 Predator–prey dynamics: the role of predators in the control of problem species. J. Bhutan Stud. 10, 68-89.
  56. 10.1007/s11284-010-0723-1 · DOI
  57. 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.01981.x · DOI
  58. 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2006.00139.x · DOI
  59. 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2007.00310.x · DOI
  60. 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2011.00871.x · DOI
  61. 10.1098/rsos.160252 · DOI
  62. 10.1111/1365-2664.12700 · DOI
  63. 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108383 · DOI
  64. 10.1111/ele.13344 · DOI
  65. 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.11.003 · DOI
  66. 10.1111/2041-210X.13117 · DOI
  67. 10.1073/pnas.1922097117 · DOI
  68. 10.1890/0012-9658(2003)084[0777:EAFRPA]2.0.CO;2 · DOI · Paper page
  69. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01431.x · DOI
  70. 10.1111/j.1365-2907.2011.00183.x · DOI
  71. 10.3389/fevo.2020.00048 · DOI
  72. 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108256 · DOI
  73. 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.01.022 · DOI
  74. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105931 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Penjor, U., Astaras, C., Cushman, S. A., Kaszta, Ż., & Macdonald, D. W.
Affiliations
  • Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, The Recanati-Kaplan Centre, Tubney House, Abingdon Road, Oxford OX13 5QL, UK
  • Forest Research Institute, ELGO-DIMITRA, Thessaloniki, Greece
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Publisher
The Royal Society
Published
2022-04-27
Volume
289
Issue
1973
ISSN
  • 0962-8452
  • 1471-2954
DOI
10.1098/rspb.2021.2681
PMC
PMC9043700
Cited by
42
References
4
Language
en
Licence
royalsociety.org/journals/ethics-policies/data-sharing-mining/ (tdm)
Funders
  • WWF-EFN Russell E. Train (scholarship to UP)
  • Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Oxford University (scholarship to UP)
  • Lady Margaret Hall, University of Oxford (grant to UP)
  • Robertson Foundation (grant to DWM)
  • University of Oxford QR GCRF (grant to UP)

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