Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20463952›Full record

ArticlePloS one2010

Familiarity breeds contempt: kangaroos persistently avoid areas with experimentally deployed dingo scents.

Michael H Parsons, Daniel T Blumstein

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The Australian dingo: untamed or feral?Frontiers in zoology · 2019
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Michael H ParsonsCentre for Ecosystem Diversity and Dynamics (CEDD), Department of Environmental Biology, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. M.Parsons@Murdoch.edu.au
Daniel T Blumstein
Curtin University · AUUniversity of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhether or not animals habituate to repeated exposure to predator scents may depend upon whether there are predators associated with the cues. Understanding the contexts of habituation is theoretically important and has profound implication for the application of predator-based herbivore deterrents. We repeatedly exposed a mixed mob of macropod marsupials to olfactory scents (urine, feces) from a sympatric predator (Canis lupus dingo), along with a control (water). If these predator cues were alarming, we expected that over time, some red kangaroos (Macropus rufous), western grey kangaroos (Macropus fuliginosus) and agile wallabies (Macropus agilis) would elect to not participate in cafeteria trials because the scents provided information about the riskiness of the area. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsWe evaluated the effects of urine and feces independently and expected that urine would elicit a stronger reaction because it contains a broader class of infochemicals (pheromones, kairomones). Finally, we scored non-invasive indicators (flight and alarm stomps) to determine whether fear or altered palatability was responsible for the response. Repeated exposure reduced macropodid foraging on food associated with 40 ml of dingo urine, X = 986.75+/-3.97 g food remained as compared to the tap water control, X = 209.0+/-107.0 g (P<0.001). Macropodids fled more when encountering a urine treatment, X = 4.50+/-2.08 flights, as compared to the control, X = 0 flights (P<0.001). There was no difference in effect between urine or feces treatments (P>0.5). Macropodids did not habituate to repeated exposure to predator scents, rather they avoided the entire experimental area after 10 days of trials (R(2) = 83.8; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Responses to urine and feces were indistinguishable; both elicited fear-based responses and deterred foraging. Despite repeated exposure to predator-related cues in the absence of a predator, macropodids persistently avoided an area of highly palatable food. Area avoidance is consistent with that observed from other species following repeated anti-predator conditioning, However, this is the first time this response has been experimentally observed among medium or large vertebrates - where a local response is observed spatially and an area effect is revealed over time.

Indexed as

CuesOdorantsAnimalsAvoidance LearningDogsFearMacropodidaePredatory BehaviorRecognition, PsychologyTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID20463952
PMCPMC2864734
OpenAlexW2070403587

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.