ArticleMethods in ecology and evolution2018
How to use (and not to use) movement-based indices for quantifying foraging behaviour.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stable isotopes and foraging behaviors support the role of antipredator benefits in driving the association between two marine fishes.Oecologia · 2023Article
- Observation resolution critically influences movement-based foraging indices.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- How to use (and not to use) movement-based indices for quantifying foraging behaviour.Methods in ecology and evolution · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.