Show simple item record

FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorParker, Finn Cameron Gillies
dc.coverage.spatialWalpeup, Victoria, Australiaen_AU
dc.coverage.temporal2022-2023en_AU
dc.date.accessioned2026-06-30T03:57:35Z
dc.date.available2026-06-30T03:57:35Z
dc.date.issued2026
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2123/35472
dc.description.abstractForaging decisions about risk and reward are driven by an option’s perceived value relative to foregone alternatives, i.e. missed opportunity costs (MOCs). Information that alters perceptions about alternatives (i.e. perceived MOCs) should therefore influence animal behaviour, yet perceived MOCs are overlooked in wildlife management and rarely manipulated. Phantom decoys are attractive but inaccessible options (i.e. missed opportunities) that change decision-making, seemingly by altering perceptions of MOCs. Using phantom decoys, we conducted two experiments to: a) test if misinformation about MOCs alters risk versus reward foraging decisions; and b) assess whether decoys can increase trapping rates by changing how animals trade off trap danger for rewards inside. Firstly, we conducted a giving-up density (GUD) experiment on wild house mice (Mus musculus) in large natural enclosures, creating patches comprising safe and risky trays of high- and low-quality foods, with decoys at half the patches. Where decoys were present, mice foraged longer in risky trays, accepting greater risk at these patches compared to otherwise identical patches without decoys. Secondly, in a field trapping experiment, we positioned decoys beside trap entrances, and compared capture rates to controls. More mice were captured in traps with decoys outside them. Our results demonstrate how information alone can shape perceptions of MOCs to increase risky behaviour. Behavioural responses to ‘irrelevant’ alternatives (i.e. phantom decoys) have traditionally been considered irrational. Our findings suggest that attractive resources provide valuable information about the environment, even if inaccessible, highlighting the potential for decoy information to alter decision-making to improve wildlife management outcomes.en_AU
dc.language.isoenen_AU
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution 4.0en_AU
dc.subjectContext-dependent decision-makingen_AU
dc.subjectrisk-sensitive foragingen_AU
dc.subjectecological rationalityen_AU
dc.subjectpest managementen_AU
dc.subjectinformation useen_AU
dc.subjectmissed opportunity costen_AU
dc.titlePhantom decoys alter perceived missed opportunity costs and increase risky foraging decisions - Dataseten_AU
dc.typeDataseten_AU
dc.subject.asrcANZSRC FoR code::31 BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES::3103 Ecology::310301 Behavioural ecologyen_AU
dc.identifier.doi10.25910/sdve-w105
dc.relation.arcDP200103148
dc.relation.arcDE220101316
dc.relation.arcDP190101441
dc.description.methodThis data was collected across two experiments over the course of two years (2022-2023). Experiment 1 (foraging experiment) - Wild house mice (Mus musculus) were studied in nine large outdoor field enclosures in Walpeup, Victoria, Australia. We used a repeated-measures experimental design to test whether inaccessible but highly attractive food odours (phantom decoys) influenced foraging decisions. Each enclosure contained four foraging patches, each comprising paired safe and risky food trays offering either high-quality (sunflower) or lower-quality (barley) food. Half of the enclosures initially received phantom decoys positioned adjacent to designated patches, while the remaining enclosures served as controls before treatments were reversed. Giving-up density (GUD; the amount of food remaining after overnight foraging) was recorded daily to quantify foraging effort. Prior to experimentation, mouse densities were standardised across enclosures and animals were allowed to acclimatise to the experimental setup. The dataset includes GUD measurements together with treatment, patch, food quality, risk level, enclosure and sampling information. Full experimental procedures are described in the associated publication. Experiment 2 (Field trapping experiment) - Field trapping was conducted in cereal crops near Walpeup, Victoria, Australia during 2022 and 2023 to test whether phantom decoys increased live-trap capture success. Elliott traps were assigned to one of three treatments: standard wheat bait (control), a phantom decoy positioned outside the trap, or a decoy placed inside the trap as a procedural control. Traps were operated for up to six consecutive nights and checked each morning, with captured mice individually shave-marked to identify recaptures. In 2022, a subset of traps was monitored using motion-triggered cameras to quantify trap visitation independently of captures. The dataset contains capture histories, treatment assignments, trap identifiers, sampling night, recapture information and, where applicable, camera visitation records. Complete details of the trapping design, experimental procedures and statistical analyses are provided in the associated publication.en_AU
usyd.facultySeS faculties schools::Faculty of Science::School of Life and Environmental Sciencesen_AU
usyd.departmentBehavioural Ecology and Conservation Research Groupen_AU
workflow.metadata.onlyNoen_AU


Show simple item record

Associated file/s

Associated collections

Show simple item record

There are no previous versions of the item available.