Cited by 125Wildlife Ecology and ConservationAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesMarine animal studies overview

The response of spotted hyaenas to long‐term changes in prey populations: functional response and interspecific kleptoparasitism

Höner, Oliver P., Wachter, Bettina, East, Marion L., Hofer, Heribert·2002·Journal of Animal Ecology

Abstract

Summary Over the last three decades the main prey species (wildebeest Connochaetes taurinus, zebra Equus burchelli, Thomson’s gazelle Gazella thomsoni, and Grant’s gazelle Gazella granti) of spotted hyaenas Crocuta crocuta in the Ngorongoro Crater, Tanzania, substantially declined in numbers, whereas buffalo Syncerus caffer numbers increased strongly. This provided a ‘natural experiment’ to investigate how a generalist predator such as the spotted hyaena responds to long‐term changes in prey populations. Here we compare data on the feeding ecology of Crater hyaenas from the late 1990s (period II) with equivalent data from the late 1960s (period I). Hyaenas showed strong hunting preferences for wildebeest calves and gazelle fawns during both periods I and II. Adult buffaloes, prey difficult to hunt for hyaenas, were rarely hunted in either period despite a large increase in buffalo numbers from period I to II. Hyaenas exhibited a functional response to the changes in prey populations by killing more buffalo calves and adult wildebeest during period II, relatively easy prey categories for hyaenas to hunt. The proportion of carcasses scavenged and acquired by kleptoparasitizing other predators increased from period I to II. This was facilitated by an increase in the relative number of lion kills available to hyaenas during the same period. Hyaenas defended a similar proportion of their kills against kleptoparasitic attempts by lions during both periods. Since the ratio of kills…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2656.2002.00596.x

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

  • The real Serengeti system likely lies somewhere between the extreme type 2 functional response and the type 1 functional response.

    “The reality of the system likely lies somewhere between the extreme type 2 FR and the type 1 FR, consistent with empirical evidence that true type 1 responses are rare and that most consumer-resource interactions show some degree of saturation”

    From A Food Web Model of the Serengeti: Stability, Dynamics and Indirect Effects (2026) · cites this paper as Höner et al. 2002

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 45 · Cited by 125

Authors
Höner, O. P., Wachter, B., East, M. L., & Hofer, H.
Affiliations
  • University of Bern (CH)
  • Max Planck Society (DE)
Corresponding author
Höner, Oliver P.
Venue
Journal of Animal Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-03
Volume
71
Issue
2
Pages
236-246
ISSN
  • 0021-8790 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2656
OpenAlex
W2068212529
Cited by
125
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
FWCI
3.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Animal Ecology (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Collegiate Athletic Association
  • Fritz Thyssen Stiftung
  • Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology
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 › Marine animal studies overview
Keywords
spotted hyena, functional response, wildebeest, zebra, Thomson's gazelle, Grant's gazelle, buffalo, scavenging, foraging behavior, Ngorongoro Crater, predator-prey interactions

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