Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33141325›Full record

ArticleOecologia2020

Among-individual differences in foraging modulate resource exploitation under perceived predation risk.

Jana A Eccard, Thilo Liesenjohann, Melanie Dammhahn

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The Ecological View of Selective Attention.Frontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. 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 Ecology
    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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jana A EccardAnimal Ecology, Institute for Biochemistry and Biology, University of Potsdam, Maulbeerallee 1, 14469, Potsdam, Germany. eccard@uni-potsdam.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6151-2128
Thilo LiesenjohannAnimal Ecology, Institute for Biochemistry and Biology, University of Potsdam, Maulbeerallee 1, 14469, Potsdam, Germany.
Melanie DammhahnAnimal Ecology, Institute for Biochemistry and Biology, University of Potsdam, Maulbeerallee 1, 14469, Potsdam, Germany.
University of Potsdam · DE

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DA 1377/4-1Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft EC 361/2
6 · The paper itself

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

Feeding BehaviorIndividualityAnimalsArvicolinaeFood ChainHumansPredatory BehaviorAnimal personalityGiving-up densityIntra-specific trait variationLandscape of fearOptimal foragingPredation riskResource exploitation

Identifiers

PMID33141325
PMCPMC7683444
OpenAlexW3097545349

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.