Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 443

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A comparison and critique of different scat-analysis methods for determining carnivore diet: Comparison of scat-analysis methods

KLARE, Unn, KAMLER, Jan F., MACDONALD, David W.·2011·Mammal Review

Abstract

1 For terrestrial carnivores, scat analysis is the technique most often used to determine diets. Various methods of interpreting scat-analysis data exist; however, little is known about how the choice of method affects the results. 2 We reviewed 50 scat-analysis papers to assess the range of methods currently used. Furthermore, we used a large data set from cape fox Vulpes chama and black-backed jackal Canis mesomelas scats to compare 11 scat-analysis methods. Techniques tested included five biomass calculation methods, four frequency of occurrence methods, one method that estimated volume in scats, and another that estimated mass of food items in scats. 3 Frequency of occurrence methods were used in 94% of reviewed papers, and in 50% of papers they were the sole methods used. However, we conclude that frequency of occurrence has the least ecological significance and results can be misleading. Although biomass calculations probably provide the best approximation to true diets, only 23% of reviewed papers used suitable biomass calculation methods when models were available for the study species. 4 Analysis of fox and jackal scats showed that there were significant differences among methods when calculating percent diet composition and niche breadth. Additionally, dietary overlap between species differed considerably among the methods (range of R0 = 0.29–0.79). We conclude that the choice of method can have a significant impact on the results of dietary analysis, and can lead to very different conclusions about a species' ecology. 5 The best approximation of the true diet can be obtained by using a biomass calculation model that was developed for the same species, or for a closely related species with a similar food spectrum. When no such model is available, either the volume or mass of diet components in the scats should be used. To document rare food items, frequency of occurrence data could also be given.

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.1365-2907.2011.00183.x

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 443

Metadata

Authors
KLARE, U., KAMLER, J. F., & MACDONALD, D. W.
Venue
Mammal Review
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-02-23
Volume
41
Issue
4
Pages
294-312
ISSN
0305-1838 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2126489714
Cited by
443
References
3
FWCI
16.94
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A comparison and critique of different scat-analysis methods for determining carnivore diet: Comparison of scat-analysis methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2907.2011.00183.x
The paper
KLARE, U., KAMLER, J. F., & MACDONALD, D. W. (2011). A comparison and critique of different scat-analysis methods for determining carnivore diet: Comparison of scat-analysis methods. Mammal Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.2011.00183.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.