Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33784342›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Brain mass explains prey size selection better than beak, gizzard and body size in a benthivorous duck species.

Karsten Laursen, Anders Pape Møller

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 95% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Karsten LaursenDepartment of Bioscience, Aarhus University, Rønde, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-4386-4944
Anders Pape MøllerEcologie Systématique Evolution, Université Paris-Sud, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, Orsay Cedex, France.
Aarhus University · DKUniversité Paris-Sud · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prey size selection in some bird species is determined by the size of the beak. However, we assumed for bird species swallowing whole prey that a cognitive process may be involved. As cognitive feature, brain mass was used. We hypothesized that the mass of the brain was more strongly positively correlated with prey size than morphological features such as beak volume, gizzard mass and body mass. We tested this hypothesis on eiders Somateria mollissima that swallow the prey whole, by using mean and maximum size of nine prey categories. Eiders were collected at the main wintering grounds in Denmark. As index of brain mass we used head volume, which is positively correlated with brain mass (r2 = 0.73). Head volume of eiders was significantly, positive correlated with mean and maximum size of blue mussels Mytilus edulis, razor clams Ensis directus and all prey sizes combined and the maximum size of draft whelk Hinia reticulata and conch Buccinum undatum. Gizzard mass was also significantly positively correlated with maximum size of draft whelk and conch. Beak volume and body mass was not significantly correlated with the size of any of the nine food items. Analyses of effect size for organs showed that head volume was positively related to prey size, whereas beak volume, gizzard mass and body mass did not show a significant positive relationship. These results indicate that cognitive processes connected to brain mass may be involved in prey size selection by eiders.

Indexed as

Body SizeAnimalsAquatic OrganismsBeakBivalviaBrainCognitionDenmarkDucksFeeding BehaviorFemaleFood ChainGizzard, AvianMaleOrgan SizePredatory Behavior

Identifiers

PMID33784342
PMCPMC8009388
OpenAlexW3145448013

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.