Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38926870›Full record

ArticleBMC zoology2024

Null models confirm nest site fidelity by male smallmouth bass, Micropterus dolomieu.

Daniel D Wiegmann, Kelly L Weinersmith, Jeffrey R Baylis, Steven P Newman, Lisa M Angeloni

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC zoology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Daniel D WiegmannDepartment of Biological Sciences and J. P. Scott Center for Neuroscience, Mind and Behavior, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH, 43403, USA. ddwiegm@bgsu.edu.
Kelly L WeinersmithDepartment of BioSciences, Rice University, MS-140, 6100 Main Street, Houston, TX, 77005, USA.
Jeffrey R BaylisDepartment of Integrative Biology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, 53706, USA.
Steven P NewmanWisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Woodruff, WI, 54568, USA.
Lisa M AngeloniDepartment of Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 80523, USA.

Funding

National Science Foundation IOS 1755387National Science Foundation IOS 1755421
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany animals appear to preferentially renest in proximity to a site they previously occupied. Evidence of nest fidelity is often inferred from a right skewed distribution of distances between the nests of individuals that breed in two consecutive reproduction episodes, where many individuals nest some arbitrarily close distance to their prior nest and others, in the extended right tail of the distribution, nest far from the nest they previously occupied. Because right skewed distributions of inter-nest distances can arise even when individuals choose nest locations randomly, however, such inferences are prone to error. The importance of null models-used to generate patterns of individual inter-nest distances by processes that do not involve site attachment-for inferences about site fidelity has been known for decades but is still often unappreciated or ignored.

methodsThe right skewed distributions of inter-nest distances observed in two earlier studies of male smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) suggest prima facie that males exhibit nest site fidelity between annual reproduction episodes, but patterns of inter-nest distances have yet to be compared to an adequate null model. Here, we evaluate the nest site fidelity of marked male M. dolomieu in a decade-long dataset, where we apply a randomization procedure based on the rencontre probability problem to generate null models. Eight observed distributions of individual, annual inter-nest distances are compared to a year-specific null model to determine whether random processes are sufficient to explain the observed distributions of inter-nest distances.

resultsThrough contrasts between observed annual inter-nest distances and results derived from null models that imposed realistic constraints on behavior, we show that some males were undoubtedly nest-site faithful. To reinforce the utility of null models and to make these kinds of models more accessible, we also provide a supplemental tutorial. The tutorial illustrates how random site choices, subject to common ecological and behavioral constraints, and even how distance is measured, can produce patterns of inter-nest distances that falsely imply nest site fidelity, or a lack of fidelity. The R code needed to reproduce these null models is included. The inference errors evident in our examples generalize to other forms of site fidelity, such as the apparent patch fidelity of certain sea bird foragers.

conclusionsThe comparisons of observed distributions of inter-nest distances with those generated by null models imply that, as suggested in prior studies, male M. dolomieu indeed exhibit annual nest site fidelity. Procedures like those we apply are necessary first steps in analyses when distributions of distances between the nests of individuals in consecutive reproduction episodes are used to infer nest-site fidelity. Why male M. dolomieu are site faithful is a question yet to be answered.

Indexed as

Nest site fidelity, Null models, Smallmouth bass

Identifiers

PMID38926870
PMCPMC11210175

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.