The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Predation, group size and mortality in a cooperative mongoose, Suricata suricatta
Open accessAbstract
1. In social mammals where group members cooperate to detect predators and raise young, members of small groups commonly show higher mortality or lower breeding success than members of large ones. It is generally assumed that this is because large group size allows individuals to detect or repel predators more effectively but other benefits of group size may also be involved, including reduced costs of raising young and more effective competition for resources with neighbouring groups. 2. To investigate the extent to which predation rate affects survival, we compared mortality rates in two populations of suricates (Suricata suricatta), one living in an area of high predator density (Kalahari Gemsbok Park) and one living in an area of relatively low predator density (neighbouring ranchland). Most aspects of feeding ecology and growth (including time spent feeding, daily weight gain, growth, adult body weight, breeding frequency and neonatal mortality) were similar in the two populations. In contrast, mortality of animals over 3 months old was 1·7 times higher in the Park than on ranchland. 3. Mortality of juveniles between emergence from the natal burrow and 6 months of age was higher in small groups than large ones in the Park but significantly lower in small groups than large ones on ranchland. Adult mortality declined in larger groups in both areas. 4. The tendency for survival to be low in small groups had far‐reaching consequences for the risk of group extinction. During a year of low rainfall in the Park, all groups of less than nine animals became extinct and population density declined to around a third of its initial level. We argue that high group extinction rates are to be expected in species where survival declines in small groups and mortality rates are high.
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
Cites
Macdonald, D. W. (1979) · Nature · doi:10.1038/282069a0 · Cited by 198
Cited by
Inverse density dependence and the Allee effect
Courchamp, F., Clutton-Brock, T., & Grenfell, B. (1999) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/s0169-5347(99)01683-3 · Cited by 1,548
Self-citationPutting predators back into behavioral predator–prey interactions
Lima, S. L. (2002) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/s0169-5347(01)02393-x · Cited by 748
Multiple Allee effects and population management
Berec, L., Angulo, E., & Courchamp, F. (2007) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.12.002 · Cited by 710
Interference interactions, co‐existence and conservation of mammalian carnivores
Linnell, J. D. C., & Strand, O. (2000) · Diversity and Distributions · doi:10.1046/j.1472-4642.2000.00069.x · Cited by 450
Does interference competition with wolves limit the distribution and abundance of coyotes?
BERGER, K. M., & GESE, E. M. (2007) · Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2007.01287.x · Cited by 398
Metadata
- Authors
- Clutton‐Brock, T. H., Gaynor, D., McIlrath, G. M., Maccoll, A. D. C., Kansky, R., Chadwick, P., Manser, M., Skinner, J. D., & Brotherton, P. N. M.
- Venue
- Journal of Animal Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1999-07
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 672-683
- ISSN
- 0021-8790 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2656
- OpenAlex
- W2035800190
- Cited by
- 397
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Predation, group size and mortality in a cooperative mongoose, Suricata suricatta. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2656.1999.00317.x
- The paper
- Clutton‐Brock, T. H., Gaynor, D., McIlrath, G. M., Maccoll, A. D. C., Kansky, R., Chadwick, P., Manser, M., Skinner, J. D., & Brotherton, P. N. M. (1999). Predation, group size and mortality in a cooperative mongoose, Suricata suricatta. Journal of Animal Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2656.1999.00317.x
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.