Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28963624›Full record

ArticleOecologia2017

The balancing act of foraging: mammalian herbivores trade-off multiple risks when selecting food patches.

M J Camp, L A Shipley, T R Johnson, P J Olsoy, J S Forbey, J L Rachlow, D H Thornton

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Oecologia, 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
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

M J CampSchool of the Environment, Washington State University, Pullman, USA. meghan.camp@wsu.edu.
L A ShipleySchool of the Environment, Washington State University, Pullman, USA.
T R JohnsonDepartment of Statistical Science, University of Idaho, Moscow, USA.
P J OlsoySchool of the Environment, Washington State University, Pullman, USA.
J S ForbeyDepartment of Biological Sciences, Boise State University, Boise, USA.
J L RachlowDepartment of Fish and Wildlife Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, USA.
D H ThorntonSchool of the Environment, Washington State University, Pullman, USA.
Washington State University · USUniversity of Idaho · USBoise State University · US

Funding

National Science Foundation DEB-1146166National Science Foundation DEB-1146194National Science Foundation DEB-1146368
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animals face multiple risks while foraging such as the risk of acquiring inadequate energy from food and the risk of predation. We evaluated how two sympatric rabbits (pygmy rabbits, Brachylagus idahoensis, and mountain cottontail rabbits, Sylvilagus nuttallii) that differ in size, use of burrows, and habitat specialization in the sagebrush-steppe of western North America respond to different types and levels of perceived risks (i.e., fitness cost × probability of occurrence), including fiber and toxins in food, exposure to predation, and distance from a refuge. We measured food intake by the rabbits at paired food patches that varied in these risks and used the method of paired comparisons to create a relative ranking of habitat cues, which revealed an animal's perceived risk on a single scale representing an integrated response to a variety of risks. Pygmy rabbits perceived exposure to predation risk and distance from a burrow as riskier than did cottontails, whereas cottontails perceived dietary toxin as riskier. Pygmy rabbits consumed lower quality food, containing higher fiber or toxins, thereby avoided feeding in exposed patches or traveling far from their burrow to forage. In contrast, cottontails fed in exposed patches and traveled farther from the burrow to obtain higher quality food. We have shown how risks can be integrated into a single model that allows animals to reveal their perceptions of risks on a single scale that can be used to create a spatially explicit landscape of risk.

Indexed as

EatingFood PreferencesHerbivoryPredatory BehaviorAnimalsArtemisiaBody SizeEcosystemFood AnalysisNorth AmericaRabbitsRisk FactorsToxins, BiologicalToxins, BiologicalLandscape of fearMarginal rate of substitutionMethod of paired comparisonsMonoterpeneOptimal foragingPlant secondary metabolite

Identifiers

PMID28963624
OpenAlexW2759185487

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.