Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28427391›Full record

ArticleBMC ecology2017

Fish with red fluorescent eyes forage more efficiently under dim, blue-green light conditions.

Ulrike Katharina Harant, Nicolaas Karel Michiels

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC ecology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Immediate Background Color Choice in Male and FemaleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Ulrike Katharina HarantDepartment of Animal Evolutionary Ecology, Institution for Evolution and Ecology, University of Tuebingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 28, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany. ulrike.harant@uni-tuebingen.de.
Nicolaas Karel MichielsDepartment of Animal Evolutionary Ecology, Institution for Evolution and Ecology, University of Tuebingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 28, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNatural red fluorescence is particularly conspicuous in the eyes of some small, benthic, predatory fishes. Fluorescence also increases in relative efficiency with increasing depth, which has generated speculation about its possible function as a "light organ" to detect cryptic organisms under bluish light. Here we investigate whether foraging success is improved under ambient conditions that make red fluorescence stand out more, using the triplefin Tripterygion delaisi as a model system. We repeatedly presented 10 copepods to individual fish (n = 40) kept under a narrow blue-green spectrum and compared their performance with that under a broad spectrum with the same overall brightness. The experiment was repeated for two levels of brightness, a shaded one representing 0.4% of the light present at the surface and a heavily shaded one with about 0.01% of the surface brightness.

resultsFish were 7% more successful at catching copepods under the narrow, fluorescence-friendly spectrum than under the broad spectrum. However, this effect was significant under the heavily shaded light treatment only.

conclusionsThis outcome corroborates previous predictions that fluorescence may be an adaptation to blue-green, heavily shaded environments, which coincides with the opportunistic biology of this species that lives in the transition zone between exposed and heavily shaded microhabitats.

Indexed as

Ocular Physiological PhenomenaAdaptation, PhysiologicalAnimalsEyeFluorescenceLightPerciformesForaging successTripterygion delaisiVisual ecology

Identifiers

PMID28427391
PMCPMC5397785

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.