ArticleAnimal cognition2021
Sex differences in the use of spatial cues in two avian brood parasites.
Article in Animal cognition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- No Sex-Differences in Learning Trap-Gap Problems in Zebra Finches.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Brood-parasitic female cowbirds have better numerical abilities than males on a task resembling nest prospecting behaviour.Biology letters · 2025Article
- Assessing sex differences in behavioural flexibility in an endangered bird species: the Southern ground-hornbill (Bucorvus leadbeateri).Animal cognition · 2023Article
- Contrasting parental roles shape sex differences in poison frog space use but not navigational performance.eLife · 2022Article
- Do sex differences in construction behavior relate to differences in physical cognitive abilities?Animal cognition · 2022Article
- Can we build a neuroecology of innovativeness similar to that pioneered by David Sherry for spatial memory?Learning & behavior · 2022Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Shiny and screaming cowbirds are avian interspecific brood parasites that locate and prospect host nests in daylight and return from one to several days later to lay an egg during the pre-dawn twilight. Thus, during nest location and prospecting, both location information and visual features are available, but the latter become less salient in the low-light conditions when the nests are visited for laying. This raises the question of how these different sources of information interact, and whether this reflects different behavioural specializations across sexes. Differences are expected, because in shiny cowbirds, females act alone, but in screaming cowbirds, both sexes make exploratory and laying nest visits together. We trained females and males of shiny and screaming cowbird to locate a food source signalled by both colour and position (cues associated), and evaluated performance after displacing the colour cue to make it misleading (cues dissociated). There were no sex or species differences in acquisition performance while the cues were associated. When the colour cue was relocated, individuals of both sexes and species located the food source making fewer visits to non-baited wells than expected by chance, indicating that they all retained the position as an informative cue. In this phase, however, shiny cowbird females, but not screaming, outperformed conspecific males, visiting fewer non-baited wells before finding the food location and making straighter paths in the search. These results are consistent with a greater reliance on spatial memory, as expected from the shiny cowbird female's specialization on nest location behaviour.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32980971What 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.