Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40017146›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of animal ecology2025

Will I stay or will I go? Eye morphology predicts individual migratory propensity in a partial migrant.

Kaj Hulthén, Cornelia Martel, Dan-E Nilsson, Christer Brönmark, P Anders Nilsson, R Brian Langerhans, Lars-Anders Hansson, Jakob Brodersen, Henrik Baktoft, Christian Skov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of animal ecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Plasticity inProceedings. Biological sciences · 2025
    Article
  3. 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

10 authors.

Kaj HulthénAquatic Ecology Unit, Department of Biology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-4360-5555
Cornelia MartelAquatic Ecology Unit, Department of Biology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Dan-E NilssonLund Vision Group, Department of Biology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Christer BrönmarkAquatic Ecology Unit, Department of Biology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
P Anders NilssonAquatic Ecology Unit, Department of Biology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
R Brian LangerhansDepartment of Biological Sciences and W. M. Keck Center for Behavioral Biology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6864-2163
Lars-Anders HanssonAquatic Ecology Unit, Department of Biology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Jakob BrodersenDepartment of Fish Ecology and Evolution, Center for Ecology, Evolution and Biogeochemistry, EAWAG Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Kastanienbaum, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-2060-6379
Henrik BaktoftNational Institute of Aquatic Resources, Technical University of Denmark (DTU), Silkeborg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-3644-4960
Christian SkovNational Institute of Aquatic Resources, Technical University of Denmark (DTU), Silkeborg, Denmark.

Funding

Danish Rod and Net Fish License funds 38266Vetenskapsrådet 2023-04981
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Billions of animals undertake migratory journeys every year, with powerful consequences for ecosystem dynamics. Key behaviours that enable successful migration are often guided by the visual system. The amount and quality of information that animals can extract from visual scenes are directly related to structural eye size-larger eyes can house larger pupils, enhancing light-gathering capacity and vision by improving visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. Migration should exert strong demands on individual visual performance, for example via foraging, antipredator benefits or navigational requirements. Yet, it remains elusive whether variations in eye morphology and corresponding visual capabilities are associated with migratory propensity. Here, we capitalize upon intra-population variation in migratory propensity (also known as partial migration) in roach, a common freshwater fish, to directly test for migration-associated variation in image-forming eyes within a species. In a multi-year field study tracking the migration decisions of over 2000 individuals in two different lake systems, we found that relative pupil size was positively associated with individual migration propensity. Computational simulations of the visual ecology associated with the observed differences in pupil size show that migrants have an extended visual detection range and that the performance gain is most pronounced for viewing small targets (e.g. planktonic prey) under low-light conditions. These results suggest that the larger pupils of migrants represent an adaptation for increased foraging efficiency to aid in the accumulation of critical pre-migratory energy reserves. Together, our anatomical and functional findings provide new perspectives on visual system design in relation to individual-level migratory decision-making.

Indexed as

Animal MigrationCyprinidaeEyeVision, OcularAnimalsanimal migrationeye sizepartial migrationpupil sizevisionvisual ecologyvisual rangevisual system design

Identifiers

PMID40017146
PMCPMC12056344

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.