Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26497123›Full record

ArticleOecologia2016

Information from familiar and related conspecifics affects foraging in a solitary wolf spider.

Catherine R Hoffman, Michael I Sitvarin, Ann L Rypstra

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Oecologia, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Catherine R HoffmanDepartment of Biology, Miami University, Oxford, OH, 45056, USA.
Michael I SitvarinDepartment of Biology, Miami University, Oxford, OH, 45056, USA.
Ann L RypstraDepartment of Biology, Miami University, Hamilton, OH, 45011, USA. rypstral@miamioh.edu.
Miami University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As neighbours become familiar with one another, they can divert attention away from one another and focus on other activities. Since familiarity is a likely mechanism by which animals recognise relatives, both kinship and prior association with conspecifics should allow individuals to increase foraging. We attempted to determine if the interference observed among conspecific foragers could be mitigated by familiarity and/or kinship. Because Pardosa milvina wolf spiders are sensitive to chemotactile cues deposited on substrates by other spiders, we used cues to manipulate the information available to focal spiders. We first verified that animals could use these cues to differentiate relatives and familiar conspecifics. We then documented foraging in the presence of all combinations of related and familiar animal cues. Test spiders were slower foragers, less likely to capture prey, and consumed less of each prey item when on cues from unfamiliar kin, but were faster and more effective foragers on cues from familiar non-kin. Their reactions to familiar kin and unfamiliar non-kin were intermediate. High foraging intensity on familiar cues is consistent with the idea that animals pay less attention to neighbours after some prior association. Lower foraging effort in the presence of cues from relatives may be an attempt to reduce kin competition by shifting attention toward dispersal or to provide increased access to prey for hungry relatives nearby. These findings reveal that information from conspecifics mediates social interactions among individuals and affects foraging in ways that can influence their role in the food web.

Indexed as

SpidersAnimalsCuesFood ChainRecognition, PsychologyDear enemyFamiliarityForagingLimited attentionRelatedness

Identifiers

PMID26497123
OpenAlexW1882404160

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.