Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23730810›Full record

ReviewThe Journal of animal ecology2014

Foraging currencies, metabolism and behavioural routines.

Alasdair I Houston, John M McNamara

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The Journal of animal ecology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Consumer resilience suppresses the recovery of overgrazed ecosystems.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. A Review of Cervidae Visual Ecology.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Alasdair I HoustonMAD Group, School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol, BS8 1UG, UK.
John M McNamara

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A fundamental issue in foraging theory is whether it is possible to find a simple currency that characterizes foraging behaviour. If such a currency exists, then it is tempting to argue that the selective forces that have shaped the evolution of foraging behaviour have been understood. We review previous work on currencies for the foraging behaviour of an animal that maximizes total energy gained. In many circumstances, it is optimal to maximize a suitably modified form of efficiency. We show how energy gain, predation and damage can be combined in a single currency based on reproductive value. We draw attention to the idea that hard work may have an adverse effect on an animal's condition. We develop a model of optimal foraging over a day when a forager's state consists of its energy reserves and its condition. Optimal foraging behaviour in our model depends on energy reserves, condition and time of day. The pattern of optimal behaviour depends strongly on assumptions about the probability that the forager is killed by a predator. If condition is important, no simple currency characterizes foraging behaviour, but behaviour can be understood in terms of the maximization of reproductive value. It may be optimal to adopt a foraging option that results in a rate of energy expenditure that is less than the rate associated with maximizing efficiency.

Indexed as

AnimalsBehavior, AnimalEcosystemEnergy MetabolismReproductionconditionconstraintdaily routineefficiencyenergy expenditureforagingnet rate

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.