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
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
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
“Coprophagy in canids is a well-recognized phenomenon (34) and could explain both the presence of carnivore-derived lipids and human mtDNA, but it is unlikely that humans were eating carnivores as suggested by Gilbert and coworkers (6).”
From Pre-Clovis occupation of the Americas identified by human fecal biomarkers in coprolites from Paisley Caves, Oregon (2020) · cites this paper as [34]
Citations
Cites
(2005) · Statistics for Biology and Health · doi:10.1007/0-387-27255-0_9 · Cited by 20,133
Wildlife Society (2011) · Wildlife Society Bulletin · doi:10.1002/(issn)1938-5463a · Cited by 5,571
(2019) · The Southwestern Naturalist · doi:10.1894/swna · Cited by 693
Kohn, M. H., & Wayne, R. K. (1997) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/s0169-5347(97)01050-1 · Cited by 469
Putman, R. J. (1984) · Mammal Review · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2907.1984.tb00341.x · Cited by 458
Mammals of the Eastern United States
Jones, J. K., Hamilton, W. J., & Whitaker, J. O. (1981) · The Southwestern Naturalist · doi:10.2307/3671352 · Cited by 276
Determining the Relative Abundance of Coyotes by Scent Station Lines
Knowlton, F. F., & Linhart, S. B. (1975) · Digital Commons - USU (Utah State University) · Cited by 210
Parasitology. The Biology of Animal Parasites.
(1977) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-86-4-520_4 · Cited by 209
Scent marks as reliable signals of the competitive ability of mates
Rich, T. J., & Hurst, J. L. (1998) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1006/anbe.1998.0803 · Cited by 176
Gier, H. T. (1957) · Cited by 155
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Brillhart, 1995, Southwestern Naturalist, 40, 160
- Cavallini, 1994, Arctic Theologica, 39, 417
- Riney, 1957, New Zealand Journal of Science and Technology Series B, 38, 507
Cited by
Shillito, L.-M., Whelton, H. L., Blong, J. C., Jenkins, D. L., Connolly, T. J., & Bull, I. D. (2020) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aba6404 · Cited by 91
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.