Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31908778›Full record

ArticleMovement ecology2019

Time and energy costs of different foraging choices in an avian generalist species.

Alejandro Sotillo, Jan M Baert, Wendt Müller, Eric W M Stienen, Amadeu M V M Soares, Luc Lens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Movement ecology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors.

Alejandro Sotillo1Department of Biology, Terrestrial Ecology Unit, Ghent University, K.L. Ledeganckstraat 35, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-2963-191X
Jan M Baert1Department of Biology, Terrestrial Ecology Unit, Ghent University, K.L. Ledeganckstraat 35, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8640-043X
Wendt Müller3Department of Biology - Behavioural Ecology and Ecophysiology Group, University of Antwerp, Campus Drie Eiken, Universiteitsplein 1, 2610 Wilrijk, Antwerp Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7273-4095
Eric W M Stienen4Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Herman Teirlinckgebouw, Havenlaan 88, 1000 Brussels, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4315-0936
Amadeu M V M Soares2Department of Biology & CESAM - Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies, University of Aveiro, Campus de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0879-9470
Luc Lens1Department of Biology, Terrestrial Ecology Unit, Ghent University, K.L. Ledeganckstraat 35, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0241-2215

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnimals can obtain a higher foraging yield by optimizing energy expenditure or minimizing time costs. In this study, we assessed how individual variation in the relative use of marine and terrestrial foraging habitats relates to differences in the energy and time investments of an avian generalistic feeder (the Lesser Black-backed Gull,

methodsWe analyzed 5 years of GPS tracking data collected at the colony of Zeebrugge (Belgium). Cost proxies for energy expenditure (overall dynamic body acceleration) and time costs (trip durations and time spent away from the colony), together with trip frequency, were analyzed against the relative use of the marine and terrestrial habitats.

resultsThe marine habitat was most often used by males and outside weekends, when fisheries are active. Marine trips implied higher energetic costs and lower time investments. As chicks became older, terrestrial trips became more prevalent, and trip frequency reached a peak towards 20 days after hatching of the first egg. Over a full chick rearing period, energy costs varied widely between individuals, but no trends were found across the marine foraging gradient. Conversely, a higher use of marine foraging implied lower overall amounts of time spent away from the colony.

conclusionsForaging habitat choice was related to overall time costs incurred by gulls, but not to energy costs. The effect of chick age on foraging habitat choice and effort may be driven by energy expenditure constraints on the amount of marine foraging that can be performed. If time is less constraining to them, Lesser Black-backed Gulls may meet the increasing chick demand for food by switching from high to low energy demanding foraging strategies.

Indexed as

Central placeEnergy expenditureForagingGPS trackingODBA

Identifiers

PMID31908778
PMCPMC6937837

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.