Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40959889›Full record

ArticlePest management science2026

Nutritional missed opportunity costs: wild house mice (Mus musculus) consistently consume less preferred food, with implications for control.

Finn C G Parker, Catherine J Price, Jenna P Bytheway, Peter B Banks

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pest management science, 2026. 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

4 authors.

Finn C G ParkerSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0530-464X
Catherine J PriceSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9631-2479
Jenna P BythewaySchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4033-9538
Peter B BanksSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4340-6495

Funding

Australian Research CouncilAW Howard Memorial TrustEcological Society of Australia
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundForaging animals must navigate trade-offs among foods of varying quality and accessibility, with preferences generally predicted to be driven by energy maximisation. Limited access to preferred resources increases missed opportunity costs (MOCs), which should necessitate uptake of less-preferred alternatives. How animals trade off access to preferred versus less-preferred foods has important implications for wildlife management, especially where anthropogenic, natural, and management-related food sources co-occur. In cropping systems, mouse control relies on their uptake of unpalatable poisons coated on wheat grains, even when high-quality alternatives like sown and spilled grain are available. We tested whether increasing the cost of accessing preferred wheat seeds would shift mice toward consuming a less-preferred food, lentils.

resultsWe conducted two experiments manipulating the costs of searching for wheat, predicting mice would compensate by eating more lentils. Unexpectedly, mice ate similar quantities of lentils across treatments, regardless of wheat accessibility. We suggest this occurred because lentils contain substantially more protein than wheat, leading to a nutritional MOC associated with wheat - that is, a fitness cost incurred from an imbalanced, wheat-only diet.

conclusionMOCs are rarely defined and are typically framed as time or energy trade-offs, yet animals also incur fitness costs from nutritional imbalance. Bait substrates usually target pest preferences, but uptake may be limited when substrates match the macronutrient composition of background food (e.g., crops). We suggest that bait uptake could be improved by considering nutritional MOCs and selecting substrates that complement the macronutrient composition of background alternatives, thereby exploiting animals' nutritional requirements. © 2025 The Author(s). Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

Indexed as

Feeding BehaviorFood PreferencesRodent ControlAnimalsDietFemaleLens PlantMaleMiceTriticumbaitingdecision‐makingforagingnutritional geometrypest managementrodent

Identifiers

PMID40959889
PMCPMC12713708

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.