Cited by 84Avian ecology and behaviorWildlife Ecology and ConservationEnvironmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

SURVIVAL OF AVIAN CARCASSES AND PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF PREDATORS AND SCAVENGERS

Kostecke, Richard M., Linz, George M., Bleier, William J.·2001·Journal of Field Ornithology

Abstract

Scavenging of carcasses may bias estimates of mortality following the use of pesticides. To assess carcass survival, we monitored bird carcasses in crop stubble, grassland, roadside, and wooded habitats in east-central South Dakota in early spring. Survival rates differed among habitat types in 1997 but not in 1998. Survival rates did not differ among species of carcass in 1997 or 1998. Within 5 d, 66% of carcasses had been scavenged in both 1997 and 1998. To assess potential hazards of secondary poisoning, we used infrared-triggered camera systems to identify predators and scavengers of live birds and bird carcasses. Mammals (n = 164), particularly striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis) (n = 105), were the most commonly photographed predators and scavengers. The number of avian predators and scavengers photographed (n = 39) was relatively low. Because scavenger activity can be high, we recommend that searches for carcasses should be conducted within 24 h of pesticide application to ensure accurate estimates of mortality.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1648/0273-8570-72.3.439

Cites

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. 10.1093/biomet/57.3.579 · DOI
  2. Cunningham, D. J., E. W. Schafer Jr, and L. K. McConnell. 1979. DRC-1339 and DRC-2698 residues in starlings: preliminary evaluation of their effects on secondary hazard potential. Proc. Bird Control Sem 8:31–37.
  3. 10.1016/0041-008X(74)90136-7 · DOI
  4. Humberg, D. D., D. Graber, and S. Sheriff. 1983. Estimating autumn-spring waterfowl nonhunting mortality in north Missouri. Trans. North Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf 48:241–256.
  5. 10.1897/1551-5028(1999)018<2533:MFTDOA>2.3.CO;2 · DOI
  6. 10.2307/2281868 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Kreps, L. B. 1974. Feral pigeon control. Proc. Vertebr. Pest Conf 6:257–262.
  8. 10.2307/3797792 · DOI
  9. 10.1007/BF01059413 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 84

Metadata

Authors
Kostecke, R. M., Linz, G. M., & Bleier, W. J.
Affiliations
  • North Dakota State University (US)
  • United States Department of Agriculture (US)
Corresponding author
Kostecke, Richard M.
Venue
Journal of Field Ornithology
Published
2001-07
Volume
72
Issue
3
Pages
439-447
ISSN
  • 0273-8570 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-9263
OpenAlex
W2076085568
Cited by
84
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 9
FWCI
1.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Field Ornithology (publishedVersion)
  • Lincoln (University of Nebraska) (submittedVersion)
  • BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Avian ecology and behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Environmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
Keywords
avian scavengers, avian predators, secondary poisoning, striped skunks, Mephitis mephitis, habitat type effects, crop stubble, roadside habitat, grassland habitat

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