↓ Skip to main content

Effects of vulture exclusion on carrion consumption by facultative scavengers

Overview of attention for article published in Ecology and Evolution, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
14 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effects of vulture exclusion on carrion consumption by facultative scavengers
Published in
Ecology and Evolution, February 2018
DOI 10.1002/ece3.3840
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jacob E. Hill, Travis L. DeVault, James C. Beasley, Olin E. Rhodes, Jerrold L. Belant

Abstract

Vultures provide an essential ecosystem service through removal of carrion, but globally, many populations are collapsing and several species are threatened with extinction. Widespread declines in vulture populations could increase the availability of carrion to other organisms, but the ways facultative scavengers might respond to this increase have not been thoroughly explored. We aimed to determine whether facultative scavengers increase carrion consumption in the absence of vulture competition and whether they are capable of functionally replacing vultures in the removal of carrion biomass from the landscape. We experimentally excluded 65 rabbit carcasses from vultures during daylight hours and placed an additional 65 carcasses that were accessible to vultures in forested habitat in South Carolina, USA during summer (June-August). We used motion-activated cameras to compare carrion use by facultative scavenging species between the experimental and control carcasses. Scavenging by facultative scavengers did not increase in the absence of competition with vultures. We found no difference in scavenger presence between control carcasses and those from which vultures were excluded. Eighty percent of carcasses from which vultures were excluded were not scavenged by vertebrates, compared to 5% of carcasses that were accessible to vultures. At the end of the 7-day trials, there was a 10.1-fold increase in the number of experimental carcasses that were not fully scavenged compared to controls. Facultative scavengers did not functionally replace vultures during summer in our study. This finding may have been influenced by the time of the year in which the study took place, the duration of the trials, and the spacing of carcass sites. Our results suggest that under the warm and humid conditions of our study, facultative scavengers would not compensate for loss of vultures. Carcasses would persist longer in the environment and consumption of carrion would likely shift from vertebrates to decomposers. Such changes could have substantial implications for disease transmission, nutrient cycling, and ecosystem functioning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 131 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 16%
Researcher 15 11%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Other 5 4%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 29 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 37 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 28%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 34 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 17 December 2021.
All research outputs
#2,368,431
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Ecology and Evolution
#1,312
of 8,478 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,251
of 448,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology and Evolution
#38
of 210 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,478 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 448,849 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 210 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.