Visitors   Views   Downloads
NOT PEER-REVIEWED
"PeerJ Preprints" is a venue for early communication or feedback before peer review. Data may be preliminary.

Additional Information

Competing Interests

We have read and understood Peer J policy on declaration of interests and declare that we have no competing interests. However, we should state that Mr Adam Grogan is an employee of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and that Richard Thompson is an employee of RSPCA Mallydams Wood Study and Wildlife Centre.

Author Contributions

Sylvie P Vandenabeele performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Emily LC Shepard conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Adam Grogan performed the experiments, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Richard Thompson performed the experiments.

Adrian C Gleiss conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Rory P Wilson conceived and designed the experiments, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Animal Ethics

The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

The Institutional Board is the RSPCA's Project Review Group, which reviews all projects that are conducted within the wildlife centres and consider the ethical and animal welfare implications of the research. The researcher is required to complete a form detailing the proposed project methods and, if necessary, give an interview to answer specific questions should any arise. The Project Review Group will then review the application and, if accepted, the applicant is informed in writing, usually by email. The project was reviewed by this Group and approved.

Data Deposition

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

Dropbox

Raw data are accessible here

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/af1q26f0go0yv5q/AADvnoVkm1euK1byuibitM8ya?dl=0

Funding

This study received the financial support from the California Department of Fish and Game’s Oil Spill Response Trust Fund (through the Oiled Wildlife Care Network at the Wildlife Health Center, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis) and the RSPCA (Wilberforce Way, Southwater, Horsham, West Sussex, RH13 9RS, United Kingdom). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.


Add your feedback

Before adding feedback, consider if it can be asked as a question instead, and if so then use the Question tab. Pointing out typos is fine, but authors are encouraged to accept only substantially helpful feedback.

Some Markdown syntax is allowed: _italic_ **bold** ^superscript^ ~subscript~ %%blockquote%% [link text](link URL)
 
By posting this you agree to PeerJ's commenting policies