Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29938016›Full record

ArticleMethods in ecology and evolution2018

How to use (and not to use) movement-based indices for quantifying foraging behaviour.

Topaz Halperin, Michael Kalyuzhny, Dror Hawlena

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Methods 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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Topaz HalperinDepartment of Ecology, Evolution & Behavior Alexander Silberman Institute of Life Sciences The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Jerusalem Israel.
Michael KalyuzhnyDepartment of Ecology, Evolution & Behavior Alexander Silberman Institute of Life Sciences The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Jerusalem Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-5574-0079
Dror HawlenaDepartment of Ecology, Evolution & Behavior Alexander Silberman Institute of Life Sciences The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Jerusalem Israel.ORCID 0000-0001-9142-1553

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Movement-based indices such as moves per minute (MPM) and proportion time moving (PTM) are common methodologies to quantify foraging behaviour. We explore fundamental drawbacks of these indices that question the ways scientists have been using them and propose new solutions.To do so, we combined analytical and simulation models with lizards foraging data at the individual and species levels.We found that the maximal value of MPM is constrained by the minimal durations of moves and stops. As a result, foragers that rarely move and those that rarely stop are bounded to similar low MPM values. This implies that (1) MPM has very little meaning when used alone, (2) MPM and PTM are interdependent, and (3) certain areas in the MPM-PTM plane cannot be occupied. We also found that MPM suffers from inaccuracy and imprecision.We introduced a new bias correction formula for already published MPM data, and a novel index of changes per minute (CPM) that uses the frequency of changes between move and stop bouts. CPM is very similar to MPM, but does not suffer from bias. Finally, we suggested a new foraging plane of average move and average stop durations. We hope that our guidelines of how to use (and not to use) movement-based indices will add rigor to the study of animals' foraging behaviour.

Indexed as

active foragerambush forageranimal movement analysisbehavioural indicesforaging modelizardsmovement per minuteproportion time moving

Identifiers

PMID29938016
PMCPMC5993309

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.