2011
DOI: 10.1590/s1984-46702011000200019
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Differential detectability of rodents and birds in scats of ocelots, Leopardus pardalis (Mammalia: Felidae)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This apparently greater consumption of mammals compared with other vertebrate classes could be an artefact related to faecal analysis. Differential digestion rates lead to variation in detectability between groups of prey, generally biasing the results, with reduced FOs for birds, for example (Pires et al 2011). In the studies we compiled, amphibians, for instance, were detected in the analysis of stomach contents, but have not been reported in any analysis of scats of the same predator species, which is in accordance with the results found by Woinarski et al (2020) for domestic cats in Australia.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This apparently greater consumption of mammals compared with other vertebrate classes could be an artefact related to faecal analysis. Differential digestion rates lead to variation in detectability between groups of prey, generally biasing the results, with reduced FOs for birds, for example (Pires et al 2011). In the studies we compiled, amphibians, for instance, were detected in the analysis of stomach contents, but have not been reported in any analysis of scats of the same predator species, which is in accordance with the results found by Woinarski et al (2020) for domestic cats in Australia.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Unless stated otherwise, analyses were restricted to mammalian and invertebrate prey, because some of the studies were focused on reporting mammalian prey or invertebrate consumption only, ignoring other vertebrate classes. Moreover, digestion of other vertebrate prey is often faster, so that prey remains are less likely to be detected or identified in scats in the same proportion as mammalian prey (Pires et al 2011), leading to unreliable FO estimates.…”
Section: General Patterns In Prey Usementioning
confidence: 99%
“…These factors also affect the degree to which bones and teeth are digested (Kelly and Garton 1997). Furthermore, Pires et al (2011) showed that the digestion of bones and teeth may also vary from one individual to another, which suggests that these items are not reliable indicators of prey in feces. Alternatively, several authors suggest that the identification of hairs of prey provides a good basis for reconstructing the diet (Liberg 1982, Gamberg and Atkinson 1988, Kelly and Garton 1997) because hair is more difficult to digest (Leprince et al 1980).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Faecal analysis has limitations, such as the differential digestion of dietary items and the individual variation in the digestion of different prey items (Hume ; Pires et al . ). Nonetheless, faecal analysis is considered reliable for organisms that consume mainly arthropods (Dickman & Huang ) and has the advantage that individuals need not be killed.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 97%