ArticleiScience2023
Information integration for decision-making in desert locusts.
Article in iScience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Including population and environmental dynamic heterogeneities in continuum models of collective behaviour with applications to locust foraging and group structure.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Exploring the complex information processes underlying plant behavior.Plant signaling & behavior · 2024Review
- Linking cognitive strategy, neural mechanism, and movement statistics in group foraging behaviors.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Synergistic olfactory processing for social plasticity in desert locusts.Nature communications · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Locust swarms can extend over hundred kilometers, and starvation compels this ancient pest to devour everything in its path. Theory suggests that gregarious behavior benefits foraging efficiency, yet the role of social cohesion remains elusive. To this end, we collected high-resolution trajectories of individual and grouped gregarious desert locusts in a 2-choice assay with patches of either similar or different quality. Carefully maintaining animals' identities allowed us to monitor each individual's experience and estimate the leaky accumulation process of personally acquired and socially derived evidence. We fitted data to a Bayesian model to gain insight into the decision-making system for patch selection. By disentangling the relative contribution of each information class, our study suggests that locusts balance incongruent evidence but reinforce congruent ones. We provide insight into the collective foraging decisions of social (but non-eusocial) insects and present locusts as a powerful empirical system to study individual choices and consequent collective dynamics.
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.