CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 449Wildlife Ecology and ConservationAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesRangeland and Wildlife Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 102 of the 102 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prey preferences of the lion (Panthera leo)

Hayward, Matt W., Kerley, Graham I. H.·2005·Journal of Zoology
DOI 10.1017/s0952836905007508
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract LionsPanthera leoare generally thought to prey on medium to large ungulates. Knowledge of which species are actually preferred and which are avoided is lacking, however, as is an understanding of why such preference or avoidance may arise. An analysis of 32 studies over 48 different spatial locations or temporal periods throughout the distribution of the lion shows that it preferentially preys upon species within a weight range of 190–550 kg. The most preferred weight of lion prey is 350 kg. The mean mass of significantly preferred prey species is 290 kg and of all preferred species is 201 kg. Gemsbok, buffalo, wildebeest, giraffe and zebra are significantly preferred. Species outside the preferred weight range are generally avoided. Species within the preferred weight range that are not significantly preferred (such as roan, sable and eland) generally have features that reduce predation either morphologically (e.g. sable horns), ecologically (e.g. roan and sable occurring at low density), or behaviourally (e.g. the large herd size and increased vigilance of eland). Warthog are below the preferred weight range yet are taken in accordance with their availability and this is probably due to their sympatry with lion, their relatively slow evasion speed and their lower level of vigilance. Plots of prey preference against prey body mass follows a bell curve with a right skew that, we argue, is caused by collective hunting by lions of larger‐bodied prey. Our methods can be used on all large predators and are likely to be useful in assessing competition in sympatric communities of predators, cooperative hunting and predicting predator diets. This will allow us to move beyond descriptive dietary studies to improve our predictive understanding of the mechanisms underlying predator–prey interactions.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0952836905007508

Cites

102 of 102 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. Bertram B. C. R., 1979, Serengeti I: dynamics of an ecosystem, 221
  2. Beyers C. P. de L., 1964, Lion vs buffalo, Animal, 5, 220
  3. Bourliere F., 1963, Specific feeding habits of African carnivores, Afr. Wildl, 17, 21
  4. Bridgeford P., 1985, Unusual diet of the lion Panthera leo in the Skeleton Coast Park, Madoqua, 14, 187
  5. Dowsett R. J., 1966, Wet season game populations and biomass in the Ngoma area of the Kafue National Park, Puku, 4, 135
  6. Elliot W. M., 1987, Possible predation of a black rhinoceros calf by a lion, Lammergeyer, 38, 68
  7. Estes R. D., 1999, The safari companion: a guide to watching African mammals
  8. Ewer R. F., 1973, The carnivores
  9. Hanby J. P., 1991, Great cats, 80
  10. Joslin P., 1984, The environmental limitations and future of the Asiatic lion, J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc, 81, 648
  11. Kingdon J., 1984, The encyclopedia of mammals, 486
  12. Kruuk H., 1975, Function and evolution in behaviour, 119
  13. Maddock A., 1996, Changes in lion number sin Hluhluwe‐Umfolozi Park, Lammergeyer, 44, 6
  14. Mangani B., 1962, Buffalo kills lion, Afr. Wildl, 16, 27
  15. Saba A. R. K., 1979, Wildlife management in savanna woodland, 41
  16. Schaller G. B., 1972, The Serengeti lion
  17. Scheel D., 1995, Serengeti II: dynamics, management and conservation of an ecosystem, 299
  18. Sinclair A. R. E., 1995, Serengeti II: dynamics, management and conservation of an ecosystem, 3
  19. Sinclair A. R. E., 1995, Serengeti II: dynamics, management and conservation of an ecosystem, 194
  20. Steele N. A., 1970, A preliminary report on the lions in the Umfolozi and Hluhluwe Game Reserves, Lammergeyer, 11, 68
  21. Viljoen P. C., 1993, The effects of changes in prey availability on lion predation in a natural ecosystem in northern Botswana, Symp. zool. Soc. Lond, 193
  22. Whateley A., 1985, The carnivores of the Hluhluwe and Umfolozi Game Reserves: 1973–1982, Lammergeyer, 35, 1
  23. Wilson V. J., 1981, Lions, leopards and lynxs

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 449

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hayward, M. W., & Kerley, G. I. H.
Affiliations
Nelson Mandela University (ZA)
Corresponding author
Hayward, Matt W.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Zoology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-11
Volume
267
Issue
3
Pages
309-322
ISSN
  • 0952-8369 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7998
DOI
10.1017/s0952836905007508
OpenAlex
W2152283858
Cited by
449
References
102
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 22
FWCI
9.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 119 d)
Locations
  • Journal of Zoology (publishedVersion)
  • Nelson Mandela University Research Repository (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
Keywords
lion, prey selection, prey avoidance, ungulate prey, collective hunting, predator-prey interactions, predator diet, sympatric predators, warthog, gemsbok, buffalo, wildebeest, giraffe, zebra, Roan, sable, eland, sustained attention, herd size

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