Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29321847›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2018

Search and foraging behaviors from movement data: A comparison of methods.

Ashley Bennison, Stuart Bearhop, Thomas W Bodey, Stephen C Votier, W James Grecian, Ewan D Wakefield, Keith C Hamer, Mark Jessopp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The Trajectory Statistics of Biological Exploratory Dynamics.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Ashley BennisonMaREI Centre for Marine and Renewable Energy Environmental Research Institute University College Cork Cork Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-9713-8310
Stuart BearhopCentre for Ecology & Conservation University of Exeter Penryn UK.
Thomas W BodeyCentre for Ecology & Conservation University of Exeter Penryn UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5334-9615
Stephen C VotierEnvironment & Sustainability Institute University of Exeter Penryn UK.
W James GrecianSea Mammal Research Unit Scottish Oceans Institute University of St Andrews St Andrews, Fife Scotland.
Ewan D WakefieldSea Mammal Research Unit Scottish Oceans Institute University of St Andrews St Andrews, Fife Scotland.
Keith C HamerFaculty of Biological Sciences School of Biology University of Leeds Leeds UK.
Mark JessoppMaREI Centre for Marine and Renewable Energy Environmental Research Institute University College Cork Cork Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Search behavior is often used as a proxy for foraging effort within studies of animal movement, despite it being only one part of the foraging process, which also includes prey capture. While methods for validating prey capture exist, many studies rely solely on behavioral annotation of animal movement data to identify search and infer prey capture attempts. However, the degree to which search correlates with prey capture is largely untested. This study applied seven behavioral annotation methods to identify search behavior from GPS tracks of northern gannets (

Indexed as

behaviorfirst passage timehidden Markov modelskernel densityk‐meansmachine learningmovementstate‐space modelstelemetry

Identifiers

PMID29321847
PMCPMC5756868

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.