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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
Several studies report a reduction in scavenging efficiency when larger facultative scavengers are excluded.
“For instance, several studies report a reduction in scavenging efficiency when larger facultative scavengers are excluded [165 -167].”
From Forensic experiments on animal scavenging: A systematic literature review on what we have and what we need (2023) · cites this paper as [167]
Citations
Cites
Biodiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality
Hector, A., & Bagchi, R. (2007) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature05947 · Cited by 1,412
Biodiversity and ecosystem function: the consumer connection
Duffy, J. E. (2002) · Oikos · doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.990201.x · Cited by 653
Wilmers, C. C., Stahler, D. R., Crabtree, R. L., Smith, D. W., & Getz, W. M. (2003) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00522.x · Cited by 271
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 41
- 10.2307/3545823 · DOI
- Beasley J. C., 2008, Relationship between raccoon abundance and crop damage, Human-Wildlife Conflicts, 2, 36
- 10.2193/2006-228 · DOI
- 10.1093/jhered/esp114 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.actao.2009.06.002 · DOI
- 10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[2821:CMCBMA]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
- Burnham K. P., 2002, Model selection and multimodel inference, 2nd ed
- 10.1016/j.baae.2008.03.009 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF03192458 · DOI
- 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12378.x · DOI
- 10.1139/z04-022 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.baae.2011.02.008 · DOI
- 10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[1915:HLTCAT]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
- 10.1126/science.245.4914.170 · DOI
- 10.1017/S1464793105006950 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00156-8 · DOI
- 10.1890/04-0922 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s004420050180 · DOI
- 10.2193/2008-282 · DOI
- Krebs C. J, 1999, Ecological methodology, 2nd ed
- Kruuk H, 1967, Competition for food between vultures in east Africa, Ardea, 55, 172
- 10.1126/science.1064088 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2307/1937517 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.04.020 · DOI
- 10.2193/0022-541X(2005)069[0933:MPOBFR]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
- 10.1038/nature02317 · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01740.x · DOI
- 10.1890/08-0972.1 · DOI
- 10.1525/bio.2009.59.9.9 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00107-0 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1073/pnas.0805403105 · DOI
- 10.1073/pnas.0408049101 · DOI
- 10.1098/rspb.2006.0232 · DOI
- 10.1139/z05-158 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1046/j.1472-4642.2003.00158.x · DOI
- 10.2307/1939377 · DOI
- Tilman D., 2001, Diversity and productivity in a long‐term grassland experiment, Science, 29, 843, 10.1126/science.1060391 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1525/auk.2011.10248 · DOI
- 10.1146/annurev.es.07.110176.000501 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1523-1739.1988.tb00197.x · DOI
- Zar J. H, 2002, Biostatistical analysis, 4th ed
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
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