Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36456650›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Individual variability in habitat selection by aquatic insects is driven by taxonomy rather than specialisation.

Hana Šigutová, Martin Šigut, Aleš Dolný, Filip Harabiš

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. 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. 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.

Hana ŠigutováDepartment of Biology and Ecology, Faculty of Science, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic. hana.sigutova@osu.cz.
Martin ŠigutDepartment of Biology and Ecology, Faculty of Science, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic.
Aleš DolnýDepartment of Biology and Ecology, Faculty of Science, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic.
Filip HarabišDepartment of Ecology, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic. harabis@fzp.czu.cz.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Habitat selection, the choice of a habitat based on its perceived quality, is a key mechanism structuring freshwater communities. To date, individual variability in habitat selection has been neglected, and specialisation has never been considered in this type of studies. We examined the individual differences in the habitat selection of backswimmers (Notonectidae) and diving beetles (Dytiscidae). From each family, we selected one habitat generalist able to coexist with fish (Notonecta glauca, Dytiscus marginalis), and one species specialised to fishless habitats (Notonecta obliqua, Acilius sulcatus). We performed a mesocosm experiment quantifying the consistency in individuals' decisions in response to fish and vegetation structure, in relation to sex and specialisation. Neither the overall pattern of preferences nor consistency in individuals' decisions differed between specialists and generalists or between the sexes, but both were consistent within families. At the population level, backswimmers preferred fishless pools with submersed and floating macrophytes, while diving beetles showed no clear preferences. Individual decisions of backswimmers were consistent and likely driven by conspecific/heterospecific attraction. In diving beetles, individual decisions were primarily density-dependent. Our results reinforce the significance of habitat selectivity for aquatic community assembly, while suggesting a range of mechanisms driving variability in individual behaviour.

Indexed as

ColeopteraHeteropteraAnimalsEcosystemHumansInsectaSpecialization

Identifiers

PMID36456650
PMCPMC9715563

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.