Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39904813›Full record

ArticleAnimal cognition2025

Female budgerigars prefer males with foraging skills that differ from their own.

Yuqi Zou, Zitan Song, Jiani Chen, Yuehua Sun, Michael Griesser

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal cognition, 2025. 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.

Yuqi ZouKey Laboratory of Animal Ecology and Conservation Biology, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, China.
Zitan SongDepartment for the Ecology of Animal Societies, Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior, 78467, Konstanz, Germany.
Jiani ChenCollege of Innovation Ecology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China. chenjiani@lzu.edu.cn.
Yuehua SunKey Laboratory of Animal Ecology and Conservation Biology, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, China. sunyh@ioz.ac.cn.
Michael GriesserDepartment of Collective Behavior, Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior, 78464, Konstanz, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft GR 4650/2-1National Natural Science Foundation of China No. 31501868
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Foraging skills influence food intake and could therefore also play a role in mate choice decision. Previous empirical work has shown that individuals benefit from being in groups that include individuals with a variety of foraging skills as this increases foraging success. This idea, formalized in the skill-pool hypothesis, may extend to mate choice. Diverse foraging skills can expand the foraging niche of a pair and benefit offspring through enhanced parental provisioning, and exposure to a broader foraging skillset. To test this idea, we trained captive female and male budgerigars to solve one of two different novel foraging puzzle boxes. Then, females simultaneously observed two males that could solve either the same or the other box, and assessed female preferences in a binary mate choice apparatus. Females preferred males with foraging skills that differed from their own, independent of the skill type and the number of times males solved the foraging puzzle. These findings show that foraging skills can influence social preferences, including in a mate choice context, and support intraspecific diversity in foraging skills.

Indexed as

Feeding BehaviorMating Preference, AnimalMelopsittacusAnimalsAppetitive BehaviorChoice BehaviorFemaleMaleForaging skillsMate choiceMelopsittacus undulatusSkill-pool effectSocial preference

Identifiers

PMID39904813
PMCPMC11794420

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.