4.4 Article

Scavenging Effects of Large Canids

期刊

INTEGRATIVE AND COMPARATIVE BIOLOGY
卷 61, 期 1, 页码 117-131

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/icb/icab012

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Researchers have conducted a comprehensive study on the ecological impacts and scavenging effects of large predators as facultative scavengers, focusing mainly on large canids including the African wild dog, dhole, dingo, Ethiopian wolf, gray wolf, maned wolf, and red wolf. The study covers conceptual overviews of community interactions around carcasses initiated by facultative scavengers, the extent of scavenging and evidence for scavenging effects of large canids, external factors that may enhance or diminish their effects as scavengers, and areas needing further research attention.
Synopsis Many large predators are also facultative scavengers that may compete with and depredate other species at carcasses. Yet, the ecological impacts of facultative scavenging by large predators, or their scavenging effects, still receive relatively little attention in comparison to their predation effects. To address this knowledge gap, we comprehensively examine the roles played by, and impacts of, facultative scavengers, with a focus on large canids: the African wild dog (Lycaon pictus), dhole (Cuon alpinus), dingo (Canis dingo), Ethiopian wolf (Canis simensis), gray wolf (Canis lupus), maned wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus), and red wolf (Canis rufus). Specifically, after defining facultative scavenging as use or usurpation of a carcass that a consumer has not killed, we (1) provide a conceptual overview of the community interactions around carcasses that can be initiated by facultative scavengers, (2) review the extent of scavenging by and the evidence for scavenging effects of large canids, (3) discuss external factors that may diminish or enhance the effects of large canids as scavengers, and (4) identify aspects of this phenomenon that require additional research attention as a guide for future work.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据