Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40628301›Full record

ArticleBiology letters2025

Pigeons in a flock go cheap: a re-evaluation of the energetics of flying in cluster flocks.

Charles M Bishop, Lewis G Halsey, Graham N Askew

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biology letters, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Charles M BishopSchool of Environmental and Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, Gwynedd, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9030-4344
Lewis G HalseySchool of Life and Health Sciences, University of Roehampton, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0786-7585
Graham N AskewSchool of Biomedical Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1010-4439

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The energy expended by animals during locomotion is often of considerable ecological importance. However, inaccurate conclusions about energy expenditure may arise if the limitations of the proxy variables being used to infer locomotion costs are not considered. The study of 'cluster' flocking behaviour in pigeons, using wingbeat frequency as a proxy for mechanical energy output, provides a useful illustration of these pitfalls. In contrast to claims in the literature, we suggest that published body kinematic values measured with accelerometers, along with our own heart rate data, show little evidence in support of the hypothesis that there is an increase in the mechanical energy costs for most pigeons to fly in a typical 'cluster' flock. Indeed, our re-analyses of acceleration-based measures of body power suggest there may be a positive energetic advantage to flying at low flock densities. We suggest that, when assessing energy expenditure using accelerometry-derived variables, the energy proxy units should be consistent with those of power, whether mass specific or absolute, and should control for differences in body mass and speed where appropriate. Accumulated total journey costs should also be assessed alongside instantaneous costs, with the former likely to be at least as ecologically significant.

Indexed as

ColumbidaeEnergy MetabolismFlight, AnimalAccelerometryAnimalsBehavior, AnimalBiomechanical PhenomenaHeart Rateaccelerationbirdsenergy expenditureflock flightheart rate

Identifiers

PMID40628301
PMCPMC12308326

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.