ArticlePloS one2019
Wood mouse feeding effort and decision-making when encountering a restricted unknown food source.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Estimating foraging behavior in rodents using a modified paradigm measuring threat imminence dynamics.Neurobiology of stress · 2024Article
- An Experimental Study in Wild Wood Mice Testing Elemental and Isotope Analysis in Faeces to Determine Variations in Food Intake Amount.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- New quantitative method for dental wear analysis of small mammals.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Behavioral responses of the European mink in the face of different threats: conspecific competitors, predators, and anthropic disturbances.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Behavioral Responses of Wild Rodents to Owl Calls in an Austral Temperate Forest.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Animals making foraging decisions must balance the energy gained, the time invested, and the influence of key environmental factors. In our work, we examined the effect of predation risk cues and experience on feeding efforts when a novel food resource was made available. To achieve this, we live-trapped wood mouse Apodemus sylvaticus in Monte de Valdelatas (Madrid), where 80 Sherman traps were set in four plots. Traps were subjected to two food-access difficulties in treatments consisting of three consecutive nights: open plastic bottles (easy) and closed bottles (difficult), both using corn as bait. To simulate predation risk, we set fox faeces in half of the traps in each plot. We also considered moonlight (medium/low) as an indirect predation risk cue. We analysed whether bottles had been bitten by mice and the gnawed area of each bottle was measured. Our results indicated that food access difficulty, experience, and predation risk determined mice feeding decisions and efforts. The ability of mice to adapt feeding effort when a new food source is available was demonstrated because a higher proportion of closed bottles exhibited bite marks and the gnawed area was bigger. Moreover, mouse experience was determinant in the use of this new resource since recaptured mice gnawed broader orifices in the bottles and the gnawed area increased each time an individual was recaptured. Additionally, direct predation risk cues prompted mice to bite the bottles whereas the effect of different moon phases varied among the food access treatments. This study provides direct evidence of formidable efficacy of wild mice to exploit a new nutrient resource while considering crucial environmental factors that shape the decision-making procedure.
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.