Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33837149›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2021

Experimental evidence of memory-based foraging decisions in a large wild mammal.

Nathan Ranc, Paul R Moorcroft, Federico Ossi, Francesca Cagnacci

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. On the interface between cultural transmission, phenotypic diversity, demography and the conservation of migratory ungulates.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Spatial-social familiarity complements the spatial-social interface: evidence from Yellowstone bison.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Research on re-searching: interrupted foraging is not disrupted foraging.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Nathan RancDepartment of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge MA 02138; nathan.ranc@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-3167-2251
Paul R MoorcroftDepartment of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge MA 02138.ORCID 0000-0002-2876-4673
Federico OssiDepartment of Biodiversity and Molecular Ecology, Research and Innovation Centre, Fondazione Edmund Mach, 38010 San Michele all'Adige, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9004-9649
Francesca CagnacciDepartment of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge MA 02138.ORCID 0000-0002-4954-9980

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many animals restrict their movements to a characteristic home range. This constrained pattern of space use is thought to result from the foraging benefits of memorizing the locations and quality of heterogeneously distributed resources. However, due to the confounding effects of sensory perception, the role of memory in home-range movement behavior lacks definitive evidence in the wild. Here, we analyze the foraging decisions of a large mammal during a field resource manipulation experiment designed to disentangle the effects of memory and perception. We parametrize a mechanistic model of spatial transitions using experimental data to quantify the cognitive processes underlying animal foraging behavior and to predict how individuals respond to resource heterogeneity in space and time. We demonstrate that roe deer (

Indexed as

Feeding BehaviorMemoryAnimalsCognitionDecision MakingDeerMovementcognitionforaging behaviormechanistic modelingmovement modelroe deer

Identifiers

PMID33837149
PMCPMC8053919

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.