ArticleOecologia2020
Among-individual differences in foraging modulate resource exploitation under perceived predation risk.
Article in Oecologia, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Experience-dependent shifts in behavioural decision-making following repeated captures in a wild mammal.Royal Society open science · 2026Article
- Using computer games to explore foraging-predation trade-offs and spatial learning in humans.Royal Society open science · 2026Article
- Individual differences in tail risk sensitive exploration using Bayes-adaptive Markov decision processes.eLife · 2025Article
- Reward-reset interval timing drives patch foraging decisions through neural state transitions in dorsomedial striatum.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Do foraging hotspots defined by key browse species facilitate interaction between livestock and wildlife?Tropical animal health and production · 2025Article
- Impacts of Food-Based Flock Size on Foraging Patterns, Activity Time Budget and Foraging Efficiency: Flexible Behavioral Responses of the Wintering Oriental Storks (Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- So many choices, so little time: Food preference and movement vary with the landscape of fear.Ecology and evolution · 2023Article
- The size dependency of foraging behaviour: an empirical test performed on aquatic amphipods.Oecologia · 2022Article
- Predation risk can modify the foraging behaviour of frugivorous carnivores: Implications of rewilding apex predators for plant-animal mutualisms.The Journal of animal ecology · 2022Article
- Fitness, risk taking, and spatial behavior covary with boldness in experimental vole populations.Ecology and evolution · 2022Article
- The Ecological View of Selective Attention.Frontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2022Article
- Collective action or individual choice: Spontaneity and individuality contribute to decision-making in Drosophila.PloS one · 2021Article
- Grow up, be persistent, and stay focused: keys for solving foraging problems by free-ranging possums.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral EcologyArticle
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
Abstract
Foraging is risky and involves balancing the benefits of resource acquisition with costs of predation. Optimal foraging theory predicts where, when and how long to forage in a given spatiotemporal distribution of risks and resources. However, significant variation in foraging behaviour and resource exploitation remain unexplained. Using single foragers in artificial landscapes of perceived risks and resources with diminishing returns, we aimed to test whether foraging behaviour and resource exploitation are adjusted to risk level, vary with risk during different components of foraging, and (co)vary among individuals. We quantified foraging behaviour and resource exploitation for 21 common voles (Microtus arvalis). By manipulating ground cover, we created simple landscapes of two food patches varying in perceived risk during feeding in a patch and/or while travelling between patches. Foraging of individuals was variable and adjusted to risk level and type. High risk during feeding reduced feeding duration and food consumption more strongly than risk while travelling. Risk during travelling modified the risk effects of feeding for changes between patches and resulting evenness of resource exploitation. Across risk conditions individuals differed consistently in when and how long they exploited resources and exposed themselves to risk. These among-individual differences in foraging behaviour were associated with consistent patterns of resource exploitation. Thus, different strategies in foraging-under-risk ultimately lead to unequal payoffs and might affect lower trophic levels in food webs. Inter-individual differences in foraging behaviour, i.e. foraging personalities, are an integral part of foraging behaviour and need to be fully integrated into optimal foraging theory.
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.