Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32420846›Full record

ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2020

Noisy communities and signal detection: why do foragers visit rewardless flowers?

Elinor M Lichtenberg, Jacob M Heiling, Judith L Bronstein, Jessica L Barker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Bee pollination services and the burden of biogeography.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2023
    Article
  2. Signal detection, acceptance thresholds and the evolution of animal recognition systems.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020
    Article
  3. 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.

Elinor M LichtenbergDepartment of Integrative Biology, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA.
Jacob M HeilingDepartment of Biological Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA.
Judith L BronsteinDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Jessica L BarkerThe Behavioural Insights Team, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Floral communities present complex and shifting resource landscapes for flower-foraging animals. Strong similarities among the floral displays of different plant species, paired with high variability in reward distributions across time and space, can weaken correlations between floral signals and reward status. As a result, it should be difficult for foragers to discriminate between rewarding and rewardless flowers. Building on signal detection theory in behavioural ecology, we use hypothetical probability density functions to examine graphically how plant signals pose challenges to forager decision-making. We argue that foraging costs associated with incorrect acceptance of rewardless flowers and incorrect rejection of rewarding ones interact with community-level reward availability to determine the extent to which rewardless and rewarding species should overlap in flowering time. We discuss the evolutionary consequences of these phenomena from both the forager and the plant perspectives. This article is part of the theme issue 'Signal detection theory in recognition systems: from evolving models to experimental tests'.

Indexed as

CuesPollinationAnimalsFlowersRewarddisplay trait overlapforagingpollinationprobability density functionrewardless flowerssignal detection theory

Identifiers

PMID32420846
PMCPMC7331016

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.