Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34930523›Full record

ArticleeLife2021

New Caledonian crows keep 'valuable' hooked tools safer than basic non-hooked tools.

Barbara C Klump, James Jh St Clair, Christian Rutz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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.

Barbara C KlumpCentre for Biological Diversity, School of Biology, St Andrews, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3919-452X
James Jh St ClairCentre for Biological Diversity, School of Biology, St Andrews, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2902-4391
Christian RutzCentre for Biological Diversity, School of Biology, St Andrews, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5187-7417

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/G023913/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/G023913/2Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/S018484/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The temporary storage and re-use of tools can significantly enhance foraging efficiency. New Caledonian crows in one of our study populations use two types of stick tools - hooked and non-hooked - which differ in raw material, manufacture costs, and foraging performance. Using a large sample of wild-caught, temporarily captive New Caledonian crows, we investigated experimentally whether individuals prefer one tool type over the other when given a choice and whether they take better care of their preferred tools between successive episodes of use, safely storing them underfoot or in nearby holes. Crows strongly preferred hooked stick tools made from

Indexed as

CrowsTool Use BehaviorAnimalsFemaleMaleCorvus moneduloidesecologyextractive foragingoptimal foragingtool manufacturetool useutility

Identifiers

PMID34930523
PMCPMC8691834

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.