ArticleOecologia2017
The balancing act of foraging: mammalian herbivores trade-off multiple risks when selecting food patches.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of plant monoterpenes on insect pest management and insect-associated microbes.Heliyon · 2024Review
- Food patch use of Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica) varies with personality traits.Frontiers in zoology · 2023Article
- Food quality, security, and thermal refuge influence the use of microsites and patches by pygmy rabbits (Ecology and evolution · 2022Article
- Preferences of Specialist and Generalist Mammalian Herbivores for Mixtures Versus Individual Plant Secondary Metabolites.Journal of chemical ecology · 2019Article
- Flexible resource use strategies of a central-place forager experiencing dynamic risk and opportunity.Movement ecology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.