The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Perspectives in optimal foraging
Abstract
Optimal foraging theory (OFT) is one of the few areas of study in behavior and ecology in which mathematical models derived from first principles have been seriously tested in the laboratory and field. The balance between theory and data has remained good, unlike, for example, the field of community ecology in the 1960s and 1970s, where arcane models of baroque complexity were generally matched only with qualitative and unconvincing tests. Part of the success of OFT lies in the fact that although ecological in origin, the models have been tested with both ecological methods and the methods developed by ethologists and comparative psychologists (Pyke et al. 1977; Krebs 1978, Staddon 1980; Hughes and Townsend 1981; Kamil and Yoerg 1982). In 1966, the first two papers published on OFT (MacArthur and Pianka 1966; Emlen 1966) amounted to 0.5% of the articles in American Naturalist, Ecology, Journal of Animal Ecology, and Animal Behavior . The proportion of papers on OFT in just these journals had quadrupled to 2% by 1974 and to 8% in 1981. In this chapter, we will start with a brief general comment on optimal foraging theory, then we review the evidence relating to “classical” foraging models. This is followed by two more detailed discussions; the first considers the relationship between classical models and two more recent developments, models of “rules of thumb” and stochastic models, and the second looks at some implications of the traditional models for population interactions of predators and prey.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Why Does Social Exclusion Hurt? The Relationship Between Social and Physical Pain.
MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.2.202 · Cited by 1,712
Research on self-control: An integrating framework
Logue, A. W. (1988) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00053978 · Cited by 792
Dissolved oxygen and fish behavior
Kramer, D. L. (1987) · Environmental Biology of Fishes · doi:10.1007/bf00002597 · Cited by 616
The behavioral ecology of air breathing by aquatic animals
Kramer, D. L. (1988) · Canadian Journal of Zoology · doi:10.1139/z88-012 · Cited by 317
Lima, S. L. (1985) · Oecologia · doi:10.1007/bf00378552 · Cited by 317
Metadata
- Authors
- Krebs, J. R., Stephens, D. W., Sutherland, W. J., & Myers, J. P.
- Venue
- Perspectives in Ornithology
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 1983-08-31
- Pages
- 165-222
- OpenAlex
- W2990001651
- Cited by
- 349
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 39.29
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Perspectives in optimal foraging. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/cbo9780511759994.008
- The paper
- Krebs, J. R., Stephens, D. W., Sutherland, W. J., & Myers, J. P. (1983). Perspectives in optimal foraging. Perspectives in Ornithology. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511759994.008
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.