Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38193016›Full record

ArticleBehavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology

Persistence associated with extractive foraging explains variation in innovation in Darwin's finches.

Paula Ibáñez de Aldecoa, Sabine Tebbich, Andrea S Griffin

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Demonstrating the reproductive consequences of cognition: learning from experience.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Persistence associated with extractive foraging explains variation in innovation in Darwin's finches.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology
    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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Paula Ibáñez de AldecoaDepartment of Behavioural and Cognitive Biology, Biologiezentrum University of Vienna, Djerasiplatz 1, 1030 Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3858-5107
Sabine TebbichDepartment of Behavioural and Cognitive Biology, Biologiezentrum University of Vienna, Djerasiplatz 1, 1030 Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3971-2139
Andrea S GriffinSchool of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4624-9904
University of Vienna · ATUniversity of Newcastle Australia · AU

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF W 1262
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The capacity to create new behaviors is influenced by environmental factors such as foraging ecology, which can lead to phylogenetic variation in innovativeness. Alternatively, these differences may arise due to the selection of the underlying mechanisms, collaterally affecting innovativeness. To understand the evolutionary pathways that might enhance innovativeness, we examined the role of diet breadth and degree of extractive foraging, as well as a range of intervening cognitive and behavioral mechanisms (neophilia, neophobia, flexibility, motivation, and persistence). Darwin's finches are very suitable to this purpose: the clade is composed of closely related species that vary in their feeding habits and capacity to develop food innovations. Using a multi-access box, we conducted an interspecies comparison on innovative problem-solving between two diet specialists, extractive foragers (woodpecker and cactus finch), and two diet generalists, non-extractive foragers (small and medium ground finch). We predicted that if extractive foraging was associated with high innovativeness, variation would be best explained by species differences in persistence and motivation, whereas if diet generalism was the main driver, then variation would be due to differences in flexibility and responses to novelty. We found a faster capacity to innovate and a higher persistence for extractive foragers, suggesting that persistence might be adaptive to extractive foraging and only secondarily to innovation. Our findings also show that diet generalism and some variables linking it to innovation were unrelated to innovativeness and call for the development of joint experimental approaches that capture the diversity of factors giving rise to novel behaviors.

Indexed as

Avian cognitionforaging ecologyinnovativenessinterspecies comparisonmulti-access boxproblem-solving

Identifiers

PMID38193016
PMCPMC10773301
OpenAlexW4388182416

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.