Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 168

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A review of predation as a limiting factor for bird populations in mesopredator‐rich landscapes: a case study of the UK

Roos, Staffan, Smart, Jennifer, Gibbons, David W., Wilson, Jeremy D.·2018·Biological Reviews

Abstract

The impact of increasing vertebrate predator numbers on bird populations is widely debated among the general public, game managers and conservationists across Europe. However, there are few systematic reviews of whether predation limits the population sizes of European bird species. Views on the impacts of predation are particularly polarised in the UK, probably because the UK has a globally exceptional culture of intensive, high‐yield gamebird management where predator removal is the norm. In addition, most apex predators have been exterminated or much depleted in numbers, contributing to a widely held perception that the UK has high numbers of mesopredators. This has resulted in many high‐quality studies of mesopredator impacts over several decades. Here we present results from a systematic review of predator trends and abundance, and assess whether predation limits the population sizes of 90 bird species in the UK. Our results confirm that the generalist predators Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) and Crows (Corvus coroneandC. cornix) occur at high densities in the UK compared with other European countries. In addition, some avian and mammalian predators have increased numerically in the UK during recent decades. Despite these high and increasing densities of predators, we found little evidence that predation limits populations of pigeons, woodpeckers and passerines, whereas evidence suggests that ground‐nesting seabirds, waders and gamebirds can be limited by predation. Using life‐history characteristics of prey species, we found that mainly long‐lived species with high adult survival and late onset of breeding were limited by predation. Single‐brooded species were also more likely to be limited by predation than multi‐brooded species. Predators that depredate prey species during all life stages (i.e. from nest to adult stages) limited prey numbers more than predators that depredated only specific life stages (e.g. solely during the nest phase). The Red Fox and non‐native mammals (e.g. the American MinkNeovison vison) were frequently identified as numerically limiting their prey species. Our review has identified predator–prey interactions that are particularly likely to result in population declines of prey species. In the short term, traditional predator‐management techniques (e.g. lethal control or fencing to reduce predation by a small number of predator species) could be used to protect these vulnerable species. However, as these techniques are costly and time‐consuming, we advocate that future research should identify land‐use practices and landscape configurations that would reduce predator numbers and predation rates.

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 · 10.1111/brv.12426

Cites

6 of 6 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

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

Metadata

Authors
Roos, S., Smart, J., Gibbons, D. W., & Wilson, J. D.
Venue
Biological Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-05-22
Volume
93
Issue
4
Pages
1915-1937
ISSN
  • 0006-3231 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-7931
  • 1469-185X
OpenAlex
W2804902929
Cited by
168
References
6
FWCI
1.94
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

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.