ArticleBehavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology
To eat, or not to eat: a phantom decoy affects information-gathering behavior by a free-ranging mammalian herbivore.
Article in Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology. 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.
- Efficacy and Underpinnings of the Effigy in Wildlife Management.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Betanin-Mediated Antiherbivore Defense: Functional Significance of Red Pigmentation in Epidermal Salt Bladders of Chenopodium album Leaves.Journal of chemical ecology · 2025Article
- Available and unavailable decoys in capuchin monkeys (Sapajus spp.) decision-making.Animal cognition · 2024Article
- A phantom decoy shifts wild forager decisions in a natural environment.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral EcologyArticle
- To eat, or not to eat: a phantom decoy affects information-gathering behavior by a free-ranging mammalian herbivore.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral EcologyArticle
- Phantom decoys alter perceived missed opportunity costs and increase risky foraging decisions.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral EcologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When foraging, making appropriate food choices is crucial to an animal's fitness. Classic foraging ecology theories assume animals choose food of greatest benefit based on their absolute value across multiple dimensions. Consequently, poorer options are considered irrelevant alternatives that should not influence decision-making among better options. But heuristic studies demonstrate that irrelevant alternatives (termed decoys) can influence the decisions of some animals, indicating they use a relative rather than absolute evaluation system. Our aim was to test whether a decoy influenced the decision-making process-that is, information-gathering and food choice-of a free-ranging mammalian herbivore. We tested swamp wallabies,
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.