Network structure of vertebrate scavenger assemblages at the global scale: drivers and ecosystem functioning implications
Published version of a preprint
Abstract
The organization of ecological assemblages has important implications for ecosystem functioning, but little is known about how scavenger communities organize at the global scale. Here, we test four hypotheses on the factors affecting the network structure of terrestrial vertebrate scavenger assemblages and its implications on ecosystem functioning. We expect scavenger assemblages to be more nested (i.e. structured): 1) in species‐rich and productive regions, as nestedness has been linked to high competition for carrion resources, and 2) regions with low human impact, because the most efficient carrion consumers that promote nestedness are large vertebrate scavengers, which are especially sensitive to human persecution. 3) We also expect climatic conditions to affect assemblage structure, because some scavenger assemblages have been shown to be more nested in colder months. Finally, 4) we expect more organized assemblages to be more efficient in the consumption of the resource. We first analyzed the relationship between the nestedness of the scavenger assemblages and climatic variables (i.e. temperature, precipitation, temperature variability and precipitation variability), ecosystem productivity and biomass (i.e. NDVI) and degree of human impact (i.e. human footprint) using 53 study sites in 22 countries across five continents. Then, we related structure (i.e. nestedness) with its function (i.e. carrion consumption rate). We found a more nested structure for scavenger assemblages in regions with higher NDVI values and lower human footprint. Moreover, more organized assemblages were more efficient in the consumption of carrion. However, our results did not support the prediction that the structure of the scavenger assemblages is directly related to climate. Our findings suggest that the nested structure of vertebrate scavenger assemblages affects its functionality and is driven by anthropogenic disturbance and ecosystem productivity worldwide. Disarray of scavenger assemblage structure by anthropogenic disturbance may lead to decreases in functionality of the terrestrial ecosystems via loss of key species and trophic facilitation processes.
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
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.
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 activity before or nearby an experiment can influence animal presence, diversity and behaviour.
“the human activity before the experiment or nearby can in fluence animal presence, diversity and behaviour [73,127 -129].”
From Forensic experiments on animal scavenging: A systematic literature review on what we have and what we need (2023) · cites this paper as [128]
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
Defaunation in the Anthropocene
Dirzo, R., Young, H. S., Galetti, M., Ceballos, G., Isaac, N. J. B., & Collen, B. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1251817 · Cited by 4,305 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Species-rich assemblages retaining the most efficient carrion consumers (e.g. vultures and large mammals; Dirzo et al. 2014, Mateo-Tomás et al. 2017) are strongly nested (Selva and Fortuna 2007), whereas the extirpation of these species breaks down this structure.”
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- Bascompte, J. and Jordano, P. 2013. Mutualistic networks. Mono- graphs in population biology. -Princeton Univ. Press.
- Beasley, J. C. et al. 2019 Ecological functions of vertebrate scaveng- ing. -In: Olea, P. P. et al. (eds), Carrion ecology and manage- ment. Wildlife research monographs. Springer, pp. 125-157.
- Cusens, J. et al. 2012. What is the form of the productivity-ani- mal-species-richness relationship? A critical review and meta- analysis. -Ecology 93: 2241-2252.
- DeVault, T. L. et al. 2016. Ecosystem services provided by avian scavengers. -In: Şekercioğlu, C. H. et al. (eds), Why birds matter: avian ecological function and ecosystem services. Univ. of Chicago Press, pp. 235-270.
- Fox, J. and Weisberg, S. 2011. An R companion to applied regres- sion, 2nd ed. -Sage Publications.
- Landi, P. et al. 2018. Complexity and stability of ecological net- works: a review of the theory. -Popul. Ecol. 60: 319-345.
- Moreno-Opo, R. and Margalida, A. 2019. Human-mediated car- rion: effects on ecological processes. -In: Olea, P. P. et al. (eds), Carrion ecology and management. Wildlife research mono- graphs. Springer, pp. 183-212.
- Ogada, D. et al. 2019 What makes carrion unsafe for scavengers? Considerations for appropriate regulatory policies and sound management practices. -In: Olea, P. P. et al. (eds), Carrion ecology and management. Wildlife research monographs. Springer, pp. 213-242.
- Rouse, J. W. et al. 1974. Monitoring vegetation systems in the Great Plains with ERTS. -In: Third ERTS symposium, NASA SP-351. Washington D.C., pp. 309-317.
- Selva, N. and Fortuna, M. A. 2007. The nested structure of a scav- enger community. -Proc. R. Soc. B 274: 1101-1108.
- Verhoef, H. A. and Morin, P. J. 2010. Community ecology. -Oxford Univ. Press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Indra, L., Lösch, S., Errickson, D., & Finaughty, D. (2023) · Forensic Science International · doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2023.111862 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
- Authors
- Sebastián‐González, E., Morales‐Reyes, Z., Botella, F., Naves‐Alegre, L., Pérez‐García, J. M., Mateo‐Tomás, P., Olea, P. P., Moleón, M., Barbosa, J. M., Hiraldo, F., Arrondo, E., Donázar, J. A., Cortés‐Avizanda, A., Selva, N., Lambertucci, S. A., Bhattacharjee, A., Brewer, A. L., Abernethy, E. F., Turner, K. L., Beasley, J. C., DeVault, T. L., Gerke, H. C., Rhodes, O. E., Ordiz, A., Wikenros, C., Zimmermann, B., Wabakken, P., Wilmers, C. C., Smith, J. A., Kendall, C. J., Ogada, D., Frehner, E., Allen, M. L., Wittmer, H. U., Butler, J. R. A., du Toit, J. T., Margalida, A., Oliva‐Vidal, P., Wilson, D., Jerina, K., Krofel, M., Kostecke, R., Inger, R., Per, E., Ayhan, Y., Ulusoy, H., Vural, D., Inagaki, A., Koike, S., Samson, A., Perrig, P. L., Spencer, E., Newsome, T. M., Heurich, M., Anadón, J. D., Buechley, E. R., & Sánchez‐Zapata, J. A.
- Affiliations
- Dept of Applied Biology, Univ. Miguel Hernández Elche Spain
- Biodiversity Research Unit (UMIB), UO‐CSIC‐PA, Oviedo Univ. Mieres Spain
- Depto de Ecología, Univ. Autónoma de Madrid Madrid Spain
- Dept of Zoology, Univ. of Granada Granada Spain
- Dept of Conservation Biology, Doñana Biological Station‐CSIC Seville Spain
- Inst. of Nature Conservation, Polish Academy of Sciences Krakow Poland
- Grupo de Investigaciones en Biología de la Conservación, Laboratorio Ecotono, INIBIOMA (CONICET, Univ. Nacional del Comahue) Bariloche Argentina
- Dept of Biology, Queens College, City Univ. of New York Queens NY USA
- Dept of Integrative Biology, Oregon State University Corvallis OR USA
- Savannah River Ecology Lab, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, Univ. of Georgia Aiken SC USA
- Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, Odum School of Ecology, Univ. of Georgia Aiken SC USA
- Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian Univ. of Life Sciences Ås Norway
- Grimsö Wildlife Research Station, Dept of Ecology, Swedish Univ. of Agricultural Sciences Riddarhyttan Sweden
- Faculty of Applied Ecology, Agricultural Sciences and Biotechnology, Campus Evenstad, Inland Norway Univ. of Applied Sciences Norway
- Center for Integrated Spatial Research, Environmental Studies Dept, Univ. of California Santa Cruz CA USA
- Dept of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, Univ. of California Davis CA USA
- North Carolina Zoo Asheboro NC USA
- The Peregrine Fund Boise ID USA
- Dept of Biology, Univ. of Utah Salt Lake City UT USA
- Illinois Natural History Survey, Univ. of Illinois Champaign IL USA
- School of Biological Sciences, Victoria Univ. of Wellington Wellington New Zealand
- CSIRO Land and Water Brisbane QLD Australia
- Dept of Wildland Resources, Utah State Univ. Logan UT USA
- Dept of Animal Science, Faculty of Life Sciences and Engineering, Univ. of Lleida Lleida Spain
- The Biodiversity Consultancy Cambridge UK
- Biotechnical Faculty, Univ. of Ljubljana Ljubljana Slovenia
- The Nature Conservancy Austin TX USA
- Environment and Sustainability Inst., Univ. of Exeter Penryn UK
- Faculty of Science, Dept of Biology, Gazi Univ. Teknikokullar Ankara Turkey
- DEDE Nature Team Yenimahalle Ankara Turkey
- Dept of Environment Conservation, Tokyo Univ. of Agriculture and Technology Fuchu Tokyo Japan
- Bombay Natural History Society Mumbai India
- Dept of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, Univ. of Wisconsin‐Madison WI USA
- School of Life and Environmental Sciences, The Univ. of Sydney Sydney Australia
- Dept of Visitor Management and National Park Monitoring, Bavarian Forest National Park Grafenau Germany
- Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center Washington DC USA
- ORCID
- Venue
- Ecography
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-05-08
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1143-1155
- ISSN
- 0906-7590
- 1600-0587
- Cited by
- 59
- References
- 1
- Language
- en
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
