Cited by 88Wildlife Ecology and ConservationAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesPlant and animal studies

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

Scavenger community response to the removal of a dominant scavenger

Abstract

The alteration of scavenging communities can reduce basic ecosystem services and increase risks to human and wildlife health. Recent work demonstrated that scavenging communities in agricultural landscapes are extremely efficient: superabundant mesopredators sequestered system energy by dominating scavenging activity. To explore how the disturbance of these communities affects the stability of carrion removal as an ecosystem function, we experimentally manipulated a scavenging community within an agricultural landscape by reducing the abundance of the dominant scavenger, raccoons Procyon lotor . We then monitored the fates of 676 mouse Mus musculus carcasses placed in 13 control and 13 removal woodlots from June 2007–May 2008. The diversity of vertebrate scavengers did not change between control and removal woodlots and scavenging by invertebrates was unaffected by our experiment. Although Virginia opossums Didelphis virginiana and other scavengers exhibited a functional response when raccoons were reduced in abundance, the increases did not change the proportional allocation of carcasses among scavengers. Finally, the reduced abundance of a major scavenger affected system efficiency. More carcasses remained un‐scavenged at the end of trials in removal woodlots than in control woodlots. This experiment demonstrates the vulnerability of a critical ecosystem service, carrion removal, to perturbations of the scavenging community and serves to highlight the method by which scavenger communities may respond to perturbations.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2011.19771.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. 10.2307/3545823 · DOI
  2. Beasley J. C., 2008, Relationship between raccoon abundance and crop damage, Human-Wildlife Conflicts, 2, 36
  3. 10.2193/2006-228 · DOI
  4. 10.1093/jhered/esp114 · DOI
  5. 10.1016/j.actao.2009.06.002 · DOI
  6. 10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[2821:CMCBMA]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  7. Burnham K. P., 2002, Model selection and multimodel inference, 2nd ed
  8. 10.1016/j.baae.2008.03.009 · DOI
  9. 10.1007/BF03192458 · DOI
  10. 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12378.x · DOI
  11. 10.1139/z04-022 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/j.baae.2011.02.008 · DOI
  13. 10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[1915:HLTCAT]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  14. 10.1126/science.245.4914.170 · DOI
  15. 10.1017/S1464793105006950 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00156-8 · DOI
  17. 10.1890/04-0922 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1007/s004420050180 · DOI
  19. 10.2193/2008-282 · DOI
  20. Krebs C. J, 1999, Ecological methodology, 2nd ed
  21. Kruuk H, 1967, Competition for food between vultures in east Africa, Ardea, 55, 172
  22. 10.1126/science.1064088 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.2307/1937517 · DOI
  24. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.04.020 · DOI
  25. 10.2193/0022-541X(2005)069[0933:MPOBFR]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  26. 10.1038/nature02317 · DOI
  27. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01740.x · DOI
  28. 10.1890/08-0972.1 · DOI
  29. 10.1525/bio.2009.59.9.9 · DOI
  30. 10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00107-0 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1073/pnas.0805403105 · DOI
  32. 10.1073/pnas.0408049101 · DOI
  33. 10.1098/rspb.2006.0232 · DOI
  34. 10.1139/z05-158 · DOI · Paper page
  35. 10.1046/j.1472-4642.2003.00158.x · DOI
  36. 10.2307/1939377 · DOI
  37. Tilman D., 2001, Diversity and productivity in a long‐term grassland experiment, Science, 29, 843, 10.1126/science.1060391 · DOI · Paper page
  38. 10.1525/auk.2011.10248 · DOI
  39. 10.1146/annurev.es.07.110176.000501 · DOI
  40. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.1988.tb00197.x · DOI
  41. Zar J. H, 2002, Biostatistical analysis, 4th ed

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Olson, Z. H., Beasley, J. C., DeVault, T. L., & Rhodes, O. E.
Affiliations
Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
Corresponding author
Olson, Z. H.
Venue
Oikos
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-05-31
Volume
121
Issue
1
Pages
77-84
ISSN
  • 0030-1299 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0706
OpenAlex
W2164860022
Cited by
88
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 3
FWCI
4.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Oikos (publishedVersion)
  • Lincoln (University of Nebraska) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Purdue University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant and animal studies
Keywords
scavenger communities, raccoons, Didelphis virginiana, functional response, ecosystem services, mesopredators, agricultural landscapes, community stability

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