The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Facts from faeces
Abstract
For any frustrated field‐mammalogists seeking observational data on their elusive study animals, dung may represent the most readily‐available and easily‐collected source of information upon which they may fall back in despair. Yet it is surprising how much ecological information may be deduced from an analysis of faecal depositions. This present article reviews some of the current methods available to the mammalogist for ecological detection from dung and some of the ecological areas in which it may offer information.
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
Cited by
Prey selection by tiger, leopard and dhole in tropical forests
Karanth, K. U., & Sunquist, M. E. (1995) · The Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.2307/5647 · Cited by 661
Karanth, K. U., & Sunquist, M. E. (2000) · Journal of Zoology · doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.2000.tb01076.x · Cited by 412
de Almeida Jácomo, A. T., Silveira, L., & Diniz‐Filho, J. A. F. (2004) · Journal of Zoology · doi:10.1017/s0952836903004473 · Cited by 193
Henschel, P., Hunter, L. T. B., Coad, L., Abernethy, K. A., & Mühlenberg, M. (2011) · Journal of Zoology · doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.2011.00826.x · Cited by 147
Larter, N. C., & Gates, C. C. (1991) · Canadian Journal of Zoology · doi:10.1139/z91-376 · Cited by 110
Metadata
- Authors
- PUTMAN, R. J.
- Venue
- Mammal Review
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1984-06
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 79-97
- ISSN
- 0305-1838 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2907
- OpenAlex
- W2150044902
- Cited by
- 446
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.56
- 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: Facts from faeces. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2907.1984.tb00341.x
- The paper
- PUTMAN, R. J. (1984). Facts from faeces. Mammal Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.1984.tb00341.x
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.
