ArticleCommunicative & integrative biology2011
A cost-benefit analysis of public and private communication.
Article in Communicative & integrative biology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Understanding the diversity of animal signals requires knowledge of factors which may influence the different stages of communication, from the production of a signal by the sender up to the detection, identification and final decision-making in the receiver. We studied a Neotropical katydid (Docidocercus gigliotosi) which uses airborne sound for long distance communication, but also an alternative form of private signalling through substrate vibration. Males spend more time with private signalling under full moon conditions, when the nocturnal rainforest favours predation by visually hunting predators. For either type of signal we measured the energetic costs of producing it, its active space, and the background noise levels in both transmission channels. Signal perception was studied using neurophysiological methods under outdoor conditions, which is more reliable for the private mode of communication. Our results demonstrate the complex effects of ecological conditions, such as predation, nocturnal ambient light levels and masking noise on the performance of receivers in detecting mating signals, affecting the net advantage or disadvantage of either mode of communication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.