IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v24y2013i5p1092-1098..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Slow explorers take less risk: a problem of sampling bias in ecological studies

Author

Listed:
  • Erica F. Stuber
  • Yimen G. Araya-Ajoy
  • Kimberley J. Mathot
  • Ariane Mutzel
  • Marion Nicolaus
  • Jan J. Wijmenga
  • Jakob C. Mueller
  • Niels J. Dingemanse

Abstract

Sampling bias is a key issue to consider when designing studies to address biological questions and its importance has been widely discussed in the literature. However, some forms of bias remain underestimated. We investigated the roosting decisions of free-living great tits utilizing nest-boxes in response to the installation of a novel object (a miniature video camera) inside their nest-boxes. We show that birds that score highly on a widely used exploration test (i.e., fast explorers) are more likely to accept and approach novel objects used in a seemingly unobtrusive sampling technique; thus, the sample collected overrepresents fast explorers. This form of behavior-related bias, sensitivity to novel objects, has largely been overlooked in sampling design. We demonstrate potential pitfalls of neglecting this behavior-related sampling bias in biological studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Erica F. Stuber & Yimen G. Araya-Ajoy & Kimberley J. Mathot & Ariane Mutzel & Marion Nicolaus & Jan J. Wijmenga & Jakob C. Mueller & Niels J. Dingemanse, 2013. "Slow explorers take less risk: a problem of sampling bias in ecological studies," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 24(5), pages 1092-1098.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:24:y:2013:i:5:p:1092-1098.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/art035
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tim W. Fawcett & Steven Hamblin & Luc-Alain Giraldeau, 2013. "Exposing the behavioral gambit: the evolution of learning and decision rules," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 24(1), pages 2-11.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sarah Senécal & Alexia Mouchet & Niels J Dingemanse, 2021. "Life-history trade-offs, density, lay date—not personality—explain multibroodedness in great tits," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 32(6), pages 1114-1126.
    2. Ariane Mutzel & Anne-Lise Olsen & Kimberley J Mathot & Yimen G Araya-Ajoy & Marion Nicolaus & Jan J Wijmenga & Jonathan Wright & Bart Kempenaers & Niels J Dingemanse, 2019. "Effects of manipulated levels of predation threat on parental provisioning and nestling begging," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 30(4), pages 1123-1135.
    3. Richter, Ian A. & Giacomini, Henrique Corrêa & De Kerckhove, Derrick Tupper & Jackson, Donald A. & Jones, Nicholas Edward, 2022. "Correcting for size bias in electrofishing removal samples," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 467(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nathan W Bailey & Lucas Marie-Orleach & Allen J Moore & Leigh SimmonsEditor-in-Chief, 2018. "Indirect genetic effects in behavioral ecology: does behavior play a special role in evolution?," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 29(1), pages 1-11.
    2. Dridi, Slimane & Lehmann, Laurent, 2014. "On learning dynamics underlying the evolution of learning rules," Theoretical Population Biology, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 20-36.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:24:y:2013:i:5:p:1092-1098.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.