Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28993490›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2017

Two sides of a coin: ecological and chronobiological perspectives of timing in the wild.

Barbara Helm, Marcel E Visser, William Schwartz, Noga Kronfeld-Schor, Menno Gerkema, Theunis Piersma, Guy Bloch

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
75citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

75 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Effects of daylength manipulation on migratory activity and fuelling in a long-distance nocturnal songbird migrant.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Day-night gene expression reveals circadian geneProceedings. Biological sciences · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Crickets in the spotlight: exploring the impact of light on circadian behavior.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2024
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Barbara HelmInstitute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, University of Glasgow, Graham Kerr Building, Glasgow G128QQ, UK barbara.helm@glasgow.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6648-1463
Marcel E VisserDepartment of Animal Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW), PO 50, 6700 AB Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1456-1939
William SchwartzDepartment of Neurology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 55 Lake Avenue North, Worcester, MA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7952-9729
Noga Kronfeld-SchorSchool of Zoology, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5224-3341
Menno GerkemaChronobiology, Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences (GELIFES), University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0170-2974
Theunis PiersmaNIOZ Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, Department of Coastal Systems and Utrecht University, 1790 AB Den Burg, Texel, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9668-466X
Guy BlochDepartment of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, The A. Silberman Institute of Life Sciences, Hebrew University, Jerusalem 91904, Israel.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1624-4926

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most processes within organisms, and most interactions between organisms and their environment, have distinct time profiles. The temporal coordination of such processes is crucial across levels of biological organization, but disciplines differ widely in their approaches to study timing. Such differences are accentuated between ecologists, who are centrally concerned with a holistic view of an organism in relation to its external environment, and chronobiologists, who emphasize internal timekeeping within an organism and the mechanisms of its adjustment to the environment. We argue that ecological and chronobiological perspectives are complementary, and that studies at the intersection will enable both fields to jointly overcome obstacles that currently hinder progress. However, to achieve this integration, we first have to cross some conceptual barriers, clarifying prohibitively inaccessible terminologies. We critically assess main assumptions and concepts in either field, as well as their common interests. Both approaches intersect in their need to understand the extent and regulation of temporal plasticity, and in the concept of 'chronotype', i.e. the characteristic temporal properties of individuals which are the targets of natural and sexual selection. We then highlight promising developments, point out open questions, acknowledge difficulties and propose directions for further integration of ecological and chronobiological perspectives through Wild Clock research.This article is part of the themed issue 'Wild Clocks: integrating chronobiology and ecology to understand timekeeping in free-living animals'.

Indexed as

Biological ClocksCircadian Rhythmchronotypecircadiancircannualphenotypic plasticityreaction normtime programme

Identifiers

PMID28993490
PMCPMC5647273

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.