Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39217220›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Land-based foraging by polar bears reveals sexual conflict outside mating season.

Jouke Prop, Jeffrey M Black, Jon Aars, Thomas Oudman, Eva Wolters, Børge Moe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 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

6 authors.

Jouke PropArctic Centre, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. jouke.prop@wxs.nl.
Jeffrey M BlackDepartment of Wildlife, Cal Poly Humboldt (formerly Humboldt State University), Arcata, CA, USA.
Jon AarsFRAM Centre, Norwegian Polar Institute, Tromsø, Norway.
Thomas OudmanBranta Research, Ezinge, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Eva WoltersBranta Research, Ezinge, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Børge MoeNorwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Trondheim, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

According to sexual selection theory, the sexes are faced with opposing evolutionary goals. Male fitness benefits from access to females, whereas female fitness is constrained by food resources and safety for themselves and their offspring. Particularly in large solitary carnivores, such as polar bears (Ursus maritimus), these divergent goals can potentially lead to conflict between the sexes. Outside the mating season, when polar bears are on the move across vast distances, the consequences of such conflict can become apparent when individuals arrive at the same food source. To investigate interrelationships between the sexes, we observed successive polar bears visiting a bird breeding colony to feed on clutches of eggs. We found that males succeeded females more frequently and more closely than expected by chance. Moreover, when males were closer to conspecifics, they walked faster, spent less time in the colony and ingested less food. In contrast, female foraging performance was not associated with proximity to other bears. Irrespective of proximity, females generally spent short periods in the colony and ingested fewer clutches than males. Our results suggest that in polar bears, there is a trade-off between the benefits of food intake and the opportunities (in males) and risks (in females) posed by encountering conspecifics.

Indexed as

SeasonsUrsidaeAnimalsFeeding BehaviorFemaleMaleReproductionSexual Behavior, AnimalFamiliariseForagerIntrasexual selectionMale competitionSolitary carnivore

Identifiers

PMID39217220
PMCPMC11365984

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.