Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 14

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Scat removal: a source of bias in feces-related studies

Livingston, Troy R., Gipson, Philip S., Ballard, Warren B., Sanchez, Dana M., Krausman, Paul R.·2005·Wildlife Society Bulletin

Abstract

Consumption of feces (coprophagy) may alter findings of dietary studies and population estimates based on fecal analyses, but its magnitude is poorly understood. We investigated seasonal incidence of scat removal on Fort Riley, Kansas, from January through December 2000. We placed feces from captive bobcats (Lynx rufus), captive coyotes (Canis latrans), and free-ranging coyotes randomly on tracking stations in forest and prairie landscapes to determine rates of scat removal by local wildlife. Rates of removal of feces from captive bobcats, captive coyotes, and free-ranging coyotes varied from 7% during spring to 50% during summer. We identified opossums (Didelphis virginiana) as the most common species present at stations where scat removal occurred. Feces may be an important seasonal source of food for opossums and may provide seasonal dietary supplements for other species. Other factors responsible for disturbance of feces included a woodrat (Neotoma floridana) caching coyote feces, removal of captive coyote feces by free-ranging coyotes accompanied by deposition of fresh feces, a bobcat burying a captive bobcat sample and depositing fresh feces, and rain storms. Dietary studies based on fecal analyses could be biased by scat removal, assuming that contents in feces are representative of the proportion of foods consumed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2193/0091-7648(2005)33[172:srasob]2.0.co;2

Cites

30 of 30 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

Show all 30 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Brillhart, 1995, Southwestern Naturalist, 40, 160
  2. Cavallini, 1994, Arctic Theologica, 39, 417
  3. Riney, 1957, New Zealand Journal of Science and Technology Series B, 38, 507

Cited by

See all 14

Metadata

Authors
Livingston, T. R., Gipson, P. S., Ballard, W. B., Sanchez, D. M., & Krausman, P. R.
Venue
Wildlife Society Bulletin
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-04
Volume
33
Issue
1
Pages
172-178
ISSN
  • 0091-7648
  • 1938-5463
Cited by
14
References
30
Language
en
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm, 3805 d)

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: Scat removal: a source of bias in feces-related studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2193/0091-7648(2005)33%5B172:srasob%5D2.0.co;2
The paper
Livingston, T. R., Gipson, P. S., Ballard, W. B., Sanchez, D. M., & Krausman, P. R. (2005). Scat removal: a source of bias in feces-related studies. Wildlife Society Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.2193/0091-7648(2005)33%5B172%3Asrasob%5D2.0.co%3B2

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.