ArticleEcology and evolution2019
Disentangling olfactory and visual information used by field foraging birds.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanism of wax-ripening wheat seeds attracting birds based on GC-MS widely targeted metabolomics and electronic nose technology.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Article
- Birds differentially prioritize visual and olfactory foraging cues depending on habitat of origin and sex.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Exogenous Application of Methyl Jasmonate Increases Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds in Pyrenean Oak Trees,Biology · 2022Article
- Article
- A larval aggregation pheromone as foraging cue for insectivorous birds.Biology letters · 2021Article
- Effects of Methyl Salicylate on Host Plant Acceptance and Feeding by the AphidFrontiers in plant science · 2021Article
- Insectivorous birds can see and smell systemically herbivore-induced pines.Ecology and evolution · 2020Article
- Disentangling olfactory and visual information used by field foraging birds.Ecology and evolution · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Foraging strategies of birds can influence trophic plant-insect networks with impacts on primary plant production. Recent experiments show that some forest insectivorous birds can use herbivore-induced plant volatiles (HIPVs) to locate herbivore-infested trees, but it is unclear how birds combine or prioritize visual and olfactory information when making foraging decisions. Here, we investigated attraction of ground-foraging birds to HIPVs and visible prey in short vegetation on farmland in a series of foraging choice experiments. Birds showed an initial preference for HIPVs when visual information was the same for all choice options (i.e., one experimental setup had all options with visible prey, another setup with hidden prey). However, if the alternatives within an experimental setup included visible prey (without HIPV) in competition with HIPV-only, then birds preferred the visual option over HIPVs. Our results show that olfactory cues can play an important role in birds' foraging choices when visual information contains little variation; however, visual cues are preferred when variation is present. This suggests certain aspects of bird foraging decisions in agricultural habitats are mediated by olfactory interaction mechanisms between birds and plants. We also found that birds from variety of dietary food guilds were attracted to HIPVs; hence, the ability of birds to use plant cues is probably more general than previously thought, and may influence the biological pest control potential of birds on farmland.
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.