The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Design and Analysis of Field Studies in Carrion Ecology
Abstract
As experimental units (EUs), carcasses make promising subjects for testing ecological concepts and theories. Ecological theory and experiments have shown that subdividing populations into spatially isolated patches (i.e., carcasses), linked by dispersing populations, can favor the coexistence of competitors (Atkinson and Shorrocks 1981; Kneidel 1985; Hanski 1987a; Barton et al. 2013) and form metacommunities (Leibold et al. 2004) and resource pulses (Rose and Polis 1998; Yang 2006; Yang et al. 2008). 7.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 129 7.2 Study Designs and Field Practices ............................................................................................... 130
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?
In the citing paper
“the aforementioned standards [26] speak mostly to the effects of study design on carrion entomofauna, with little attention paid to vertebrate scavengers.”
From Forensic experiments on animal scavenging: A systematic literature review on what we have and what we need (2023) · cites this paper as [26]
In the citing paper
“previously published systematic reviews of forensic decomposition experiments focus on decomposition, arthropod activity, or general experimental design and analysis in forensic taphonomy [26 -29], rather than explicitly looking at scavenging and scattering.”
From Forensic experiments on animal scavenging: A systematic literature review on what we have and what we need (2023) · cites this paper as [26]
In the citing paper
“To quantify scavenger habitu ation, an ecological baseline prior to the first carcasses being deployed is needed [14,26].”
From Forensic experiments on animal scavenging: A systematic literature review on what we have and what we need (2023) · cites this paper as [26]
In the citing paper
“However, effects observed on only one or two samples might be random, and statistical power of a study increases with number of replicates, among other factors [26].”
From Forensic experiments on animal scavenging: A systematic literature review on what we have and what we need (2023) · cites this paper as [26]
In the citing paper
“However, effects observed on only one or two samples might be random, and statistical power of a study increases with number of replicates, among other factors [26].”
From Forensic experiments on animal scavenging: A systematic literature review on what we have and what we need (2023) · cites this paper as [26]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Anderson, K.J. 2007. Temporal patterns in rates of community change during succession. The American Naturalist 169: 780–793. · DOI
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
- Schoenly, J.-P. M. K. G.
- Corresponding author
- J.-P. Michaud Kenneth G. Schoenly
- Venue
- Carrion Ecology, Evolution, and Their Applications
- Publisher
- CRC Press
- Published
- 2015-08-18
- Pages
- 144-165
- OpenAlex
- W2502436439
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 1.90
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- CRC Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Forensic Entomology and Diptera Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
- Keywords
- research design, field experiments, metacommunity, resource pulses, patch occupancy, population dispersal
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
