ArticleScientific reports2024
A cognitive approach to better understand foraging strategies of the adult domestic hen.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Foraging is known to be one of the most important activities in the behavioral budget of chickens. However, how these animals adapt different foraging strategies to diverse environmental variations is currently poorly understood. To gain further insight into this matter, in the present study, hens were submitted to the sloped-tubes task. In this task, the experimenter can manipulate the information that enables the hens to find a food reward (visible or not), placed in one of two hollow tubes. First, 12 hens were tested under free-choice conditions (no penalty for exhaustive searching in both tubes). Under these conditions, the hens adopted a non-random, side-biased strategy when the food location was not directly visible. Then, we divided the hens in two cohorts of equal size to study deeper the hens' foraging strategy when faced (1) with a different container, or (2) with a restrictive environmental constraint under forced-choice conditions (no food reward if the unbaited tube is visited first). This latter constraint increased the risk of the hen not receiving food. A change in the containers didn't modify the search behavior of the hens. However, in forced-choice conditions when the location of the food was not directly visible, four out of six hens learned to choose by exclusion. We conclude that hens can selectively adapt their foraging strategy to the point of adopting an exclusion performance, depending on available information and environmental constraints (high or low risk).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.