Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31021317›Full record

ArticleeLife2019

Signal categorization by foraging animals depends on ecological diversity.

David William Kikuchi, Anna Dornhaus, Vandana Gopeechund, Thomas N Sherratt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors.

David William KikuchiDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7379-2788
Anna DornhausDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States.
Vandana GopeechundDepartment of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.
Thomas N SherrattDepartment of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.

Funding

POST DOCTORAL EXCELLENCE IN RESEARCH AND TEACHINGK12GM000708 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI STRAUSFELD, NICHOLAS J · 2000 to 2018
$21.5M
NIGMS NIH HHS K12 GM000708NIH HHS K12GM000708
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Warning signals displayed by defended prey are mimicked by both mutualistic (Müllerian) and parasitic (Batesian) species. Yet mimicry is often imperfect: why does selection not improve mimicry? Predators create selection on warning signals, so predator psychology is crucial to understanding mimicry. We conducted experiments where humans acted as predators in a virtual ecosystem to ask how prey diversity affects the way that predators categorize prey phenotypes as profitable or unprofitable. The phenotypic diversity of prey communities strongly affected predator categorization. Higher diversity increased the likelihood that predators would use a 'key' trait to form broad categories, even if it meant committing errors. Broad categorization favors the evolution of mimicry. Both species richness and evenness contributed significantly to this effect. This lets us view the behavioral and evolutionary processes leading to mimicry in light of classical community ecology. Broad categorization by receivers is also likely to affect other forms of signaling.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionBiological MimicryBiological Variation, PopulationPredatory BehaviorSymbiosisAnimalsEcosystemHealthy VolunteersHumansModels, BiologicalVideo Gamesanimal communicationcommunity ecologyecologyevolutionary biologyhumanreceiver psychology

Identifiers

PMID31021317
PMCPMC6510532

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.