From Caching to Monopolization: Seasonal Foraging Strategies and Behavioural Responses in Captive Felidae, Accipitridae, and Canidae in UK Wildlife Sanctuaries

From Caching to Monopolization: Seasonal Foraging Strategies and Behavioural Responses in Captive Felidae, Accipitridae, and Canidae in UK Wildlife Sanctuaries | Authorea try { document.documentElement.classList.add('js'); } catch (e) { } var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'G-8VDV14Y67G']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })(); Skip to main content Preprints Collections Wiley Open Research IET Open Research Ecological Society of Japan All Collections About About Authorea FAQs Contact Us Quick Search anywhere Search for preprint articles, keywords, etc. Search Search ADVANCED SEARCH SCROLL Ecology and Evolution This is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 12 May 2026 V1 Latest version Share on From Caching to Monopolization: Seasonal Foraging Strategies and Behavioural Responses in Captive Felidae, Accipitridae, and Canidae in UK Wildlife Sanctuaries Authors : Sarina Riechmann [email protected] , Jennifer Jones [email protected] , and Anna Williams [email protected] Authors Info & Affiliations https://doi.org/10.22541/authorea.15003246/v1 Under Review Ecology and Evolution Peer review timeline 7 views 2 downloads Contents Abstract Information & Authors Metrics & Citations View Options References Figures Tables Media Share Abstract Context. Scavenging is a fundamental aspect of vertebrate ecology, influencing taphonomy, nutrient cycling, carrion decomposition, and predator-prey dynamics. However, comparative data on taxon-specific carcass use, dispersal, and bone surface modifications (BSMs) in semi-controlled settings remain limited. Such data are essential for understanding foraging strategies, refining decomposition models, and informing wildlife management. Aims. This study examined scavenging behaviours in captive Felidae (Scottish wildcat, Felis silvestris grampia), Accipitridae (Steppe eagle, Aquila nipalensis), and Canidae (Arctic fox, Vulpes lagopus). Objectives were to (i) document carcass interactions, (ii) quantify scatter radii, and (iii) assess BSMs to evaluate taxon-specific prey-handling strategies. Methods. Fieldwork was conducted at three UK wildlife sanctuaries during warm and cold seasons. Animal carcasses were surface-deposited, monitored using camera traps, and georeferenced with GS07 NetRover equipment. Behavioural interactions and scatter distances were recorded through direct and remote observation. Recovered remains were analysed using Leica stereomicroscopy and Keyence 3D microscopy to document BSMs and weathering. Spatial data were mapped in QGIS to assess dispersal patterns. Statistical analyses (Shapiro-Wilk, Pearson/Spearman correlations) explored relationships between carcass mass and scatter distance, interpreted qualitatively due to small sample sizes. Key results. Each species exhibited distinct strategies. Scottish wildcats frequently relocated whole carcasses to secluded or elevated sites, demonstrating systematic caching and consumption. Steppe eagles primarily scavenged in situ, displaying dominance-driven agonistic interactions. Arctic foxes selectively relocated partial carcasses, showing scatter-hoarding and repeated scavenging cycles. Seasonality was evident: wildcats and foxes increased aggression and dispersal in colder months, whereas eagles showed heightened interaction in warmer months. BSMs were diagnostic: wildcats produced fine punctures and tooth scores, eagles generated precise pits, V-shaped marks, and compression damage, and foxes caused clustered punctures, U-shaped scores, and cortical scooping. Conclusions. Scavenging behaviour reflects species-specific traits and seasonal pressures, consistent with optimal foraging theory. Information & Authors Information Version history V1 Version 1 12 May 2026 Peer review timeline Under Review Ecology and Evolution 12 May 2026 Submission Checks Completed Collection Ecology and Evolution Authors Affiliations Sarina Riechmann [email protected] University of Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, PR1 2HE View all articles by this author Jennifer Jones [email protected] University of Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, PR1 2HE View all articles by this author Anna Williams [email protected] University of Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, PR1 2HE View all articles by this author Metrics & Citations Metrics Article Usage 7 views 2 downloads .FvxKWukQNSOunydq8rnd { width: 100px; } Citations Download citation Sarina Riechmann, Jennifer Jones, Anna Williams. From Caching to Monopolization: Seasonal Foraging Strategies and Behavioural Responses in Captive Felidae, Accipitridae, and Canidae in UK Wildlife Sanctuaries. Authorea . 12 May 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22541/authorea.15003246/v1 If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download. For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu . Format Please select one from the list RIS (ProCite, Reference Manager) EndNote BibTex Medlars RefWorks Direct import Tips for downloading citations document.getElementById('citMgrHelpLink').addEventListener('click', function() { popupHelp(this.href); return false; }); $(".js__slcInclude").on("change", function(e){ if ($(this).val() == 'refworks') $('#direct').prop("checked", false); $('#direct').prop("disabled", ($(this).val() == 'refworks')); }); View Options View options PDF View PDF Figures Tables Media Share Share Share article link Copy Link Copied! Copying failed. Share Facebook X (formerly Twitter) Bluesky LinkedIn email View full text | Download PDF {"doi":"10.22541/authorea.15003246/v1","type":"Article"} Now Reading: Share Figures Tables Close figure viewer Back to article Figure title goes here Change zoom level Go to figure location within the article Download figure Toggle share panel Toggle share panel Share Toggle information panel Toggle information panel Go to previous graphic Go to next graphic Go to previous table Go to next table All figures All tables View all material View all material xrefBack.goTo xrefBack.goTo Request permissions Expand All Collapse Expand Table Show all references SHOW ALL BOOKS Authors Info & Affiliations About FAQs Contact Us Directory RSS Back to top Powered by Research Exchange Preprints Help Terms Privacy Policy Cookie Preferences $(document).ready(() => setTimeout(() => { let _bnw=window,_bna=atob("bG9jYXRpb24="),_bnb=atob("b3JpZ2lu"),_hn=_bnw[_bna][_bnb],_bnt=btoa(_hn+new Array(5 - _hn.length % 4).join(" ")); $.get("/resource/lodash?t="+_bnt); },4000)); (function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'9fde94b6df98300f',t:'MTc3OTE0NjMwNQ=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();