ArticleBehavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology
Ravens (
Article in Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Ravens (Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral EcologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Foraging animals need to balance the trade-off between the benefits of exploiting new resources and the unknown risks they entail. Changing environments are especially challenging, as this balance between risk and reward needs to be constantly reevaluated. One strategy animals, and in particular scavengers employ, is using conspecifics and heterospecifics as sources of information to access food. In this study, we focused on free-ranging ravens that habitually forage in a wildlife park together with heterospecifics (boars) and tested their responses to unfamiliar and unpredictable foraging situations. In the 2-sites experiment (E1), we presented them with a choice between an unfamiliar (new) and a familiar (old) foraging site; in the object experiment (E2), we presented them with an object, otherwise not seen in the wildlife park, positioned randomly next to 1 of the sites. In both experiments, we found that ravens delayed their initial approach until the boars reached the food. In E1, ravens took longer to approach the food; stole more food from conspecifics but visited in larger numbers at the new site compared with the old. In conclusion: they flexibly used others, including heterospecifics, as sources of knowledge and means to access food. In E2, the object had a stronger aversive effect at the old site than at the new site, suggesting that the effect of unpredictability is stronger in familiar environments, where it might cause an expectancy violation. Our findings highlight that the behavior toward conspecifics and heterospecifics should be considered when studying scavengers' adaptability to changing environments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.