Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34921179›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Great tits feed their nestlings with more but smaller prey items and fewer caterpillars in cities than in forests.

Csenge Sinkovics, Gábor Seress, Ivett Pipoly, Ernő Vincze, András Liker

Abstract 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 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. The impact of urbanisation on social behaviour: a comprehensive review.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Radio-tracking urban breeding birds: The importance of native vegetation.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

5 authors.

Csenge SinkovicsBehavioural Ecology Research Group, Center for Natural Sciences, University of Pannonia, Veszprém, PO Box 1158, 8210, Hungary. csenge.sinkovics@gmail.com.
Gábor SeressBehavioural Ecology Research Group, Center for Natural Sciences, University of Pannonia, Veszprém, PO Box 1158, 8210, Hungary.
Ivett PipolyBehavioural Ecology Research Group, Center for Natural Sciences, University of Pannonia, Veszprém, PO Box 1158, 8210, Hungary.
Ernő VinczeBehavioural Ecology Research Group, Center for Natural Sciences, University of Pannonia, Veszprém, PO Box 1158, 8210, Hungary.
András LikerBehavioural Ecology Research Group, Center for Natural Sciences, University of Pannonia, Veszprém, PO Box 1158, 8210, Hungary. andras.liker@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rapidly increasing urbanisation is one of the most significant anthropogenic environmental changes which can affect demographic traits of animal populations, for example resulting in reduced reproductive success. The food limitation hypothesis suggests that the shortage of high-quality nestling food in cities is a major factor responsible for the reduced reproductive performance in insectivorous birds. To study this explanation, we collected data on the parental provisioning behaviour of urban and forest great tits (Parus major) in three years that varied both in caterpillar availability (the main food of great tit nestlings) and in reproductive success of the birds. In all years, urban parents provisioned caterpillars in a smaller proportion to their nestlings, but the total amount of food per nestling (estimated by the volumes of all prey items) did not differ between habitats. In the two years with much lower reproductive success in urban than forest habitats, urban parents had higher provisioning rates, but provided more non-arthropod food and brought smaller prey items than forest parents. In the year with reduced habitat difference in reproductive success, urban parents were able to compensate for the scarcity of caterpillars by provisioning other arthropods rather than non-arthropod food, and by delivering larger preys than in the other years. Specifically, in this latter year, caterpillars provisioned by urban pairs were cc. twice as large as in the other two years, and were similar in size to caterpillars provisioned in the forest broods. These results show that although urban great tit parents can provide the same quantity of food per nestling as forest parents by reducing their brood size and increasing the per capita feeding rates for nestlings, they cannot compensate fully for the scarcity of high-quality preys (caterpillars) in poor years. In some years, however, favourable conditions for urban caterpillar development can greatly reduce food limitation in cities, allowing urban birds to achieve higher reproductive success. We suggest that urban green areas designed and managed in a way to facilitate conditions for phytophagous arthropods could improve habitat quality for urban birds.

Indexed as

ForestsLepidopteraPredatory BehaviorAnimalsCitiesFemaleLarvaPasseriformesPostal Service

Identifiers

PMID34921179
PMCPMC8683465

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.