Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28770066›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2017

A framework for testing assumptions about foraging scales, body mass, and niche separation using telemetry data.

Graeme S Cumming, Dominic A W Henry, Chevonne Reynolds

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Graeme S CummingPercy FitzPatrick Institute DST/NRF Centre of Excellence University of Cape Town Rondebosch Cape Town South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-3678-1326
Dominic A W HenryPercy FitzPatrick Institute DST/NRF Centre of Excellence University of Cape Town Rondebosch Cape Town South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-7375-141X
Chevonne ReynoldsPercy FitzPatrick Institute DST/NRF Centre of Excellence University of Cape Town Rondebosch Cape Town South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ecological theory predicts that if animals with very similar dietary requirements inhabit the same landscape, then they should avoid niche overlap by either exploiting food resources at different times or foraging at different spatial scales. Similarly, it is often assumed that animals that fall in different body mass modes and share the same body plan will use landscapes at different spatial scales. We developed a new methodological framework for understanding the scaling of foraging (i.e. the range and distribution of scales at which animals use their landscapes) by applying a combination of three well-established methods to satellite telemetry data to quantify foraging patch size distributions: (1) first-passage time analysis; (2) a movement-based kernel density estimator; and (3) statistical comparison of resulting histograms and tests for multimodality. We demonstrate our approach using two sympatric, ecologically similar species of African ducks with quite different body masses: Egyptian Geese (actually a shelduck), and Red-billed Teal. Contrary to theoretical predictions, the two species, which are sympatric throughout the year, foraged at almost identical spatial scales. Our results show how ecologists can use GPS tracking data to explicitly quantify and compare the scales of foraging by different organisms within an animal community. Our analysis demonstrates both a novel approach to foraging data analysis and the need for caution when making assumptions about the relationships among niche separation, diet, and foraging scale.

Indexed as

body sizedispersalhierarchymovementmultimodalityscalescalingsouthern Africa

Identifiers

PMID28770066
PMCPMC5528209

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.