Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33980907›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Great tits who remember more accurately have difficulty forgetting, but variation is not driven by environmental harshness.

Ethan Hermer, Ben Murphy, Alexis S Chaine, Julie Morand-Ferron

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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 at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Ethan HermerUniversity of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. eherm041@uottawa.ca.
Ben MurphyUniversity of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Alexis S ChaineStation d'Ecologie Théorique et Expérimentale du CNRS, Moulis, France.
Julie Morand-FerronUniversity of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
University of Ottawa · CAStation d’Écologie Théorique et Expérimentale · FRUniversity of Cape Town · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The causes of individual variation in memory are poorly understood in wild animals. Harsh environments with sparse or rapidly changing food resources are hypothesized to favour more accurate spatial memory to allow animals to return to previously visited patches when current patches are depleted. A potential cost of more accurate spatial memory is proactive interference, where accurate memories block the formation of new memories. This relationship between spatial memory, proactive interference, and harsh environments has only been studied in scatter-hoarding animals. We compare spatial memory accuracy and proactive interference performance of non-scatter hoarding great tits (Parus major) from high and low elevations where harshness increases with elevation. In contrast to studies of scatter-hoarders, we did not find a significant difference between high and low elevation birds in their spatial memory accuracy or proactive interference performance. Using a variance partitioning approach, we report the first among-individual trade-off between spatial memory and proactive interference, uncovering variation in memory at the individual level where selection may act. Although we have no evidence of harsh habitats affecting spatial memory, our results suggest that if elevation produced differences in spatial memory between elevations, we could see concurrent changes in how quickly birds can forget.

Indexed as

Spatial MemoryAnimalsBehavior, AnimalEcosystemEnvironmentPasseriformesSpatial Behavior

Identifiers

PMID33980907
PMCPMC8114932
OpenAlexW3162752854

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.