ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2022
Collective movement as a solution to noisy navigation and its vulnerability to population loss.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The wisdom of crowds emerges in flocks of thousands of migrating songbirds.Science advances · 2026Article
- Social influences complement environmental cues to stimulate migrating juvenile salmon.Movement ecology · 2026Article
- Multispecies sensory networks and social foraging strategies: Implications for population decline in procellariiform seabirds.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Collective movement increases initial accuracy and path efficiency in talitrid amphipod orientation.Biology letters · 2024Article
- Avoidance, confusion or solitude? Modelling how noise pollution affects whale migration.Movement ecology · 2024Article
- Collective movement as a solution to noisy navigation and its vulnerability to population loss.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many animals use the geomagnetic field to migrate long distances with high accuracy; however, research has shown that individual responses to magnetic cues can be highly variable. Thus, it has been hypothesized that magnetoreception alone is insufficient for accurate migrations and animals must either switch to a more accurate sensory cue or integrate their magnetic sense over time. Here we suggest that magnetoreceptive migrators could also use collective navigation strategies. Using agent-based models, we compare agents utilizing collective navigation to both the use of a secondary sensory system and time-integration. Our models demonstrate that collective navigation allows for 70% success rates for noisy navigators. To reach the same success rates, a secondary sensory system must provide perfect navigation for over 73% of the migratory route, and time integration must integrate over 50 time-steps, indicating that magnetoreceptive animals could benefit from using collective navigation. Finally, we explore the impact of population loss on animals relying on collective navigation. We show that as population density decreases, a greater proportion of individuals fail to reach their destination and that a 50% population reduction can result in up to a 37% decrease in the proportion of individuals completing their migration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.