ArticleOecologia2019
Time to revisit? A predator's previous successes and failures in prey capture determine its return time to patches.
Article in Oecologia, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spatial overlap of gray wolves and ungulate prey changes seasonally corresponding to prey migration.Movement ecology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
In a heterogeneous environment containing multiple patches that may deplete and renew, a forager should be able to detect the quality of food resources within and among patches and choose to exploit them to best maximize returns. From the predator's perspective, the behavioral responses of the prey in a patch will be perceived as depletion when they retreat to refuge and renewal when they reemerge. A predator encountering responsive prey should manage predation risk, and thus behavioral resource depression, by optimally timing its return time to the patch based on prey behavior. We evaluated the foraging decisions of a predator that encountered patches differing in size of the refuge and prey density. We used little egrets and goldfish as predators and prey in an environment that contained three patches (pools). We manipulated prey density and refuge size and availability (using covers) and observed predator foraging behavior. When the egret had previously caught a fish it did not discriminate between the pools, and the return time was similar for all cover types. The fish densities also did not affect the egret decisions to return to pools. However, when it failed to catch fish, it returned sooner to the pool containing the small cover than the larger one. Additionally, after failing to catch fish in patches containing the highest prey density, the egrets subsequently preferred to return to such patches sooner. We show experimentally that previous failures influence the foraging decisions of a predator choosing how quickly to return to a previously visited patch.
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.