↓ Skip to main content

Carcass Provisioning to Support Scavengers: Evaluating a Controversial Nature Conservation Practice

Overview of attention for article published in Ambio, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
Title
Carcass Provisioning to Support Scavengers: Evaluating a Controversial Nature Conservation Practice
Published in
Ambio, December 2013
DOI 10.1007/s13280-013-0469-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Debbie Fielding, Scott Newey, René van der Wal, R. Justin Irvine

Abstract

A number of scavenger species have suffered population declines across Europe. In attempts to reverse their decline, some land and wildlife managers have adopted the practice of leaving or placing out carcasses of wild or domestic herbivores to provide a source of carrion. However, this can be a controversial practice, with as yet unclear outcomes for many target species and the ecosystems they are part of. Here we bring out the key aspects of this increasingly common conservation practice illustrated using three contrasting cases studies. We show that the provision of carcasses is often motivated by a desire to benefit charismatic species or to facilitate nutrient cycling throughout an ecosystem. Evidence for the effectiveness of this practice in achieving these objectives, however, is mostly lacking, with ecologists studying "easier" species groups such as beetles and therefore not providing relevant insights. Moreover, conflicts between environmental policies that carcass provisioning is aimed at and other social and economic objectives do occur but these projects are often designed without taking into account this broader context. We conclude that expecting carcasses to simply be "good for biodiversity" may be too naïve a view. A greater knowledge of the impact of carcass provisioning and placement on ecosystems and society at large is required before it can become a more effective conservation tool at a wider scale.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 87 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 17%
Researcher 13 15%
Student > Bachelor 13 15%
Other 6 7%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 13 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 35 40%
Environmental Science 23 26%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 2%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 13 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 October 2023.
All research outputs
#967,630
of 24,615,420 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#149
of 1,755 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,708
of 318,191 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#2
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,615,420 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,755 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,191 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.