Domestic dogs shape the landscape-scale distribution of a threatened forest ungulate

By Eduardo A. Silva‐Rodríguez, K. Sieving. 2012

172 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1e8d4558ea42068c335862a85468465492e6a5e5

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

In Genetics

Citations in the corpus

The ecological impact of humans and dogs on wildlife in protected areas in eastern North America (2016, background): “These minor impacts contrast a large body of work showing that free-ranging dogs are more detrimental to wildlife than leashed dogs (Hughes and MacDonald, 2013; Silva-Rodríguez and Sieving, 2012; Weston and Stankowich, 2014).”
Altered activity patterns and reduced abundance of native mammals in sites with feral dogs in the high Andes (2016, background): “In contrast, lethal attacks of dogs on other smaller species of deer have been documented, including southern pudu (Pudu pudu, Silva-Rodríguez and Sieving 2012) and brown brocket deer (Mazama gouazoubira, Galetti and Sazima 2006).”
Predation of wildlife by free-ranging domestic dogs in Polish hunting grounds and potential competition with the grey wolf (2016, background): “Globally, dog ownership is widespread, ranging from 37% of US households (AVMA, 2012), 27% of European households (FEDIAF, 2010), 39% of Australian households (AHA, 2014), and up to 86% of households in Chile (Sepulveda et al., 2014; Silva-Rodríguez and Sieving, 2012).”
The ecological effects of providing resource subsidies to predators (2015, background): “For example, Silva-Rodríguez & Sieving (2012) showed that free-roaming domestic dogs in South America, subsidised by humans, are efficient at chasing pudu (Pudu puda), a threatened forest ungulate, and that both predation and non-lethal avoidance of dogs shape the distribution of pudu.”