Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38066967›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2023

Getting to the Meat of It: The Effects of a Captive Diet upon the Skull Morphology of the Lion and Tiger.

David M Cooper, Nobuyuki Yamaguchi, David W Macdonald, Bruce D Patterson, Galina P Salkina, Viktor G Yudin, Andrew J Dugmore, Andrew C Kitchener

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

David M CooperDepartment of Natural Sciences, National Museums Scotland, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7578-1890
Nobuyuki YamaguchiInstitute of Tropical Biodiversity and Sustainable Development, University Malaysia Terengganu, Kuala Terengganu 21030, Malaysia.
David W MacdonaldWildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, The Recanti-Kaplan Centre, Tubney House, Abingdon Road, Abingdon OX13 5QL, UK.
Bruce D PattersonNegaunee Integrative Research Center, Field Museum of Natural History, 1400 S. DuSable Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60605, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2249-7260
Galina P SalkinaJoint Directorate of the Lazovsky State Nature Reserve and the National Park «Zov Tigra», Tiger Protect Society, Primorskij Kraj, Vladivostok 692609, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-4847-4147
Viktor G YudinFederal Scientific Centre for the Biodiversity of Terrestrial Biota of East Asia, Far Eastern Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Primorskij Kraj, Vladivostok 690022, Russia.
Andrew J DugmoreInstitute of Geography, School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9YL, UK.
Andrew C KitchenerDepartment of Natural Sciences, National Museums Scotland, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2594-0827

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 219889/Z/19/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Zoo animals are crucial for conserving and potentially re-introducing species to the wild, yet it is known that the morphology of captive animals differs from that of wild animals. It is important to know how and why zoo and wild animal morphology differs to better care for captive animals and enhance their survival in reintroductions, and to understand how plasticity may influence morphology, which is supposedly indicative of evolutionary relationships. Using museum collections, we took 56 morphological measurements of skulls and mandibles from 617 captive and wild lions and tigers, reflecting each species' recent historical range. Linear morphometrics were used to identify differences in size and shape. Skull size does not differ between captive and wild lions and tigers, but skull and mandible shape does. Differences occur in regions associated with biting, indicating that diet has influenced forces acting upon the skull and mandible. The diets of captive big cats used in this study predominantly consisted of whole or partial carcasses, which closely resemble the mechanical properties of wild diets. Thus, we speculate that the additional impacts of killing, manipulating and consuming large prey in the wild have driven differentiation between captive and wild big cats.

Indexed as

captivityconservationdevelopmentlinear morphometricsontogenyPantheraphenotypic plasticitytaxonomywelfarewild

Identifiers

PMID38066967
PMCPMC10705091

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.