Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 426

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison and quantification of carnivore diet by faecal analysis: a critique, with recommendations, based on a study of the Fox Vulpes vulpes

REYNOLDS, JONATHAN C., AEBISCHER, NICHOLAS J.·1991·Mammal Review

Abstract

Failure to address many of the difficulties inherent in the analysis of carnivore faeces has hitherto limited the value of this technique in comparing carnivore diets or quantifying carnivore food consumption. In this review, major problems are discussed, and improved procedures designed to overcome them are recommended. The principal improvements recommended for laboratory procedures address the microscopic fraction of faeces, which cannot be analysed visually. This fraction may be derived from a variety of sources, leading to bias in previous techniques, particularly with regard to the importance of earthworms and birds. Attention to the microscopic fraction is necessary for correct comparison or quantitative determination of diet. Particular attention is given to statistical procedures which quantify the errors that arise in collection of samples, or during analysis. Clear statement of such errors will lead to greater comparability between studies. The procedures recommended here define the limits to accuracy in relation to sample size, total faecal production, and laboratory methods. In conjunction with adequate pilot studies, these techniques will allow more effective design of ecological studies relating to carnivore diet and food consumption.

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/j.1365-2907.1991.tb00113.x

Cites

5 of 5 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

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Artois M., 1987, Les fèces du renard (Vulpes vulpes) comme indice de consommation ou de préférence alimentaire et ďactivite, Cahiers ďEthologie appliqués, 7, 275
  2. Brunner H., 1974, The Identification of Mammalian Hair
  3. Buckman H. O., 1969, The Nature and Properties of Soils
  4. Burrows R., 1968, Wild Fox
  5. Calisti M., 1990, Food habits and trophic niche variation of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes L; 1758) in a Mediterranean coastal area, Revue ď Ecologie (La Terreetla Vie), 45, 309, 10.3406/revec.1990.2008 · DOI
  6. 10.2307/3798199 · DOI
  7. Corbet G. B., 1969, The Identification of British Mammals
  8. Cox D. R., 1970, The Analysis of Binary Data
  9. 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1966.tb02948.x · DOI · Paper page
  10. Debrot S., 1982, Atlas des Polls de Mammiferes ďEurope
  11. 10.2307/1382166 · DOI
  12. Erlinge S., 1984, Predation on brown hare and ring‐necked pheasant populations in southern Sweden, Holarctic Ecology, 7, 300
  13. Fienberg S. E., 1977, The Analysis of Cross‐Classified Categorical Data
  14. 10.2307/2425177 · DOI
  15. 10.2307/3808674 · DOI
  16. 10.2307/3800614 · DOI
  17. 10.2307/2424663 · DOI
  18. 10.2307/4136 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1038/155517b0 · DOI
  20. 10.2307/2089 · DOI
  21. 10.2307/3797647 · DOI
  22. Macdonald D. W., 1987, Running with the Fox
  23. 10.2307/1380339 · DOI
  24. 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1977.tb04201.x · DOI
  25. Richards D., 1989, Toxocara canis in foxes, The Game Conservancy Review of 1988, 20, 109
  26. 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1987.tb03739.x · DOI
  27. 10.2307/3799055 · DOI
  28. Schantz T., 1980, The Red Fox. Symposium on Behaviour and Ecology, 53, 10.1007/978-94-017-5592-4_5 · DOI
  29. Seber G. A. F., 1982, The Estimation of Animal Abundance and Related Parameters
  30. Snedecor G. W., 1980, Statistical Methods
  31. 10.2307/3895829 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 10.1136/vr.102.12.257 · DOI
  33. Woodruff A. W., 1976, Toxocariasis as a public health problem, Environmental Health, 1, 29
  34. 10.2307/3544695 · DOI
  35. Yalden D. W., 1990, The Analysis of Owl Pellets
  36. 10.1080/00063658509476867 · DOI
  37. 10.1080/00063658509476855 · DOI

Cited by

See all 426

Metadata

Authors
REYNOLDS, J. C., & AEBISCHER, N. J.
Venue
Mammal Review
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1991-09
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
97-122
ISSN
  • 0305-1838 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2907
OpenAlex
W2158938295
Cited by
426
References
5
FWCI
3.13
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: Comparison and quantification of carnivore diet by faecal analysis: a critique, with recommendations, based on a study of the Fox Vulpes vulpes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2907.1991.tb00113.x
The paper
REYNOLDS, J. C., & AEBISCHER, N. J. (1991). Comparison and quantification of carnivore diet by faecal analysis: a critique, with recommendations, based on a study of the Fox Vulpes vulpes. Mammal Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.1991.tb00113.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.