Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35507205›Full record

ArticleAnimal cognition2022

Domestication effects on social information transfer in chickens.

Austeja Rutkauskaite, Per Jensen

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal cognition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Evolutions in Commercial Meat Poultry Breeding.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Review
  6. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Austeja RutkauskaiteIFM Biology, Linköping University, 581 83, Linköping, Sweden.
Per JensenIFM Biology, Linköping University, 581 83, Linköping, Sweden. per.jensen@liu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5491-0649
Linköping University · SE

Funding

Vetenskapsrådet 2019-04869
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Red junglefowl (RJF), ancestor of all domesticated chickens, is a highly social, omnivorous bird species, presumably with a capacity for social information sharing. During domestication, birds have been selected to live in large, dynamic groups, and this may have affected their social cognition. Here, we studied social information transfer in female RJF and domesticated White Leghorn (WL) chickens. Individuals were trained to open a puzzle-box feeder by pecking a lid and we then recorded the behaviour towards the same puzzle-box feeder for birds that had either observed the trained individual ("guided") or saw the puzzle-box feeder for the first time ("naïve"). WL were considerably faster in approaching the feeder regardless of prior demonstration and pecked more at it. Both breeds were significantly faster to approach the puzzle-box feeder and pecked more after prior demonstration, but the effects were significantly stronger in WL. We conclude that both RJF and WL can utilize social information to address a novel problem, but during domestication this ability appears to have increased. The effects can be an effect of either social learning or stimulus enhancement. Some caution in this conclusion is necessary since we tested relatively few WL. Furthermore, possible confounding explanations include higher fearfulness in RJF and different effects of dominance interactions between demonstrators and observers.

Indexed as

ChickensDomesticationAnimalsFemaleDomesticationProblem-solvingStimulus enhancement

Identifiers

PMID35507205
PMCPMC9652291
OpenAlexW4225406984

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.