Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37670586›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2023

Binocular vision and foraging in ducks, geese and swans (Anatidae).

Jennifer C Cantlay, Graham R Martin, Stephanie C McClelland, Simon Potier, Michelle F O'Brien, Esteban Fernández-Juricic, Alexander L Bond, Steven J Portugal

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Jennifer C CantlayDepartment of Biological Sciences, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5998-1646
Graham R MartinSchool of Biosciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.
Stephanie C McClellandDepartment of Biological Sciences, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8763-2291
Simon PotierDepartment of Biology, Faculty of Science, Lund University, Sölvegatan 35, 223 62 Lund, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-3156-7846
Michelle F O'BrienWildfowl and Wetlands Trust (WWT), Slimbridge, Gloucestershire GL2 7BT, UK.
Esteban Fernández-JuricicDepartment of Biological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.
Alexander L BondBird Group, Department of Life Sciences, The Natural History Museum, Akeman Street, Tring, Hertfordshire HP23 6AP, UK.
Steven J PortugalDepartment of Biological Sciences, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2438-2352
Natural History Museum · GBRoyal Holloway University of London · GBLund University · SEPurdue University West Lafayette · USUniversity of Birmingham · GBWildfowl & Wetlands Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wide variation in visual field configuration across avian species is hypothesized to be driven primarily by foraging ecology and predator detection. While some studies of selected taxa have identified relationships between foraging ecology and binocular field characteristics in particular species, few have accounted for the relevance of shared ancestry. We conducted a large-scale, comparative analysis across 39 Anatidae species to investigate the relationship between the foraging ecology traits of diet or behaviour and binocular field parameters, while controlling for phylogeny. We used phylogenetic models to examine correlations between traits and binocular field characteristics, using unidimensional and morphometric approaches. We found that foraging behaviour influenced three parameters of binocular field size: maximum binocular field width, vertical binocular field extent, and angular separation between the eye-bill projection and the direction of maximum binocular field width. Foraging behaviour and body mass each influenced two descriptors of binocular field shape. Phylogenetic relatedness had minimal influence on binocular field size and shape, apart from vertical binocular field extent. Binocular field differences are associated with specific foraging behaviours, as related to the perceptual challenges of obtaining different food items from aquatic and terrestrial environments.

Indexed as

AnseriformesDucksAnimalsGeesePhylogenyVision, BinocularAnatidaebinocularityblind areaophthalmoscopevisual fields

Identifiers

PMID37670586
PMCPMC10510447
OpenAlexW4386467309

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.