The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The scent of death: Chemosensory assessment of predation risk by prey animals
Abstract
It is well documented that animals take risk of predation into account when making decisions about how to behave in particular situations, often trading-off risk against opportunities for mating or acquiring energy. Such an ability implies that animals have reliable information about the risk of predation at a given place and time. Chemosensory cues are an important source of such information. They reliably reveal the presence of predators (or their presence in the immediate past) and may also provide information on predator activity level and diet. In certain circumstances (e.g., in the dark, for animals in hiding) they may be the only cues available. Although a vast literature exists on the responses of prey to predator chemosensory cues (or odours), these studies are widely scattered, from marine biology to biological control, and not well known or appreciated by behavioural ecologists. In this paper, we provide an exhaustive review of this literature, primarily in tabular form. We highlight some of the more representative examples in the text, and discuss some ecological and evolutionary aspects of the use of chemosensory information for prey decision making. Curiously, only one example illustrates the ability of birds to detect predator odours and we have found no examples for terrestrial insects, suggesting a fruitful area for future study.
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
Behavioral adaptations to pathogens and parasites: Five strategies
Hart, B. L. (1990) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0149-7634(05)80038-7 · Cited by 734
Cited by
Landscapes of Fear: Spatial Patterns of Risk Perception and Response
Gaynor, K. M., Brown, J. S., Middleton, A. D., Power, M. E., & Brashares, J. S. (2019) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2019.01.004 · Cited by 759
Putting 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
Valeix, M., Loveridge, A. J., Chamaillé-Jammes, S., Davidson, Z., Murindagomo, F., Fritz, H., & Macdonald, D. W. (2009) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/08-0606.1 · Cited by 478
Evolutionary Biology of Animal Cognition
Dukas, R. (2004) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.112202.130152 · Cited by 357
Rodent foraging is affected by indirect, but not by direct, cues of predation risk
Orrock, J. L. (2004) · Behavioral Ecology · doi:10.1093/beheco/arh031 · Cited by 355
Metadata
- Authors
- Kats, L. B., & Dill, L. M.
- Venue
- Écoscience
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1998-01-01
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 361-394
- ISSN
- 1195-6860 (ISSN-L)
- 2376-7626
- OpenAlex
- W126353083
- Cited by
- 1,441
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 50.30
- Type
- journal article
- 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: The scent of death: Chemosensory assessment of predation risk by prey animals. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/11956860.1998.11682468
- The paper
- Kats, L. B., & Dill, L. M. (1998). The scent of death: Chemosensory assessment of predation risk by prey animals. Écoscience. https://doi.org/10.1080/11956860.1998.11682468
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.