Cited by 802

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Optimal Foraging: Attack Strategy of a Mantid

Charnov, Eric L.·1976·The American Naturalist

Abstract

Much recent theoretical work in foraging theory derives hypotheses from the general assumption that animals are "efficient" in their foraging activities. Useful reviews may be found in Krebs (1973), Schoener (1971), MacArthur (1972), and Charnov (1973). The problems considered usually relate to breadth of diet (Schoeneer 1969, 1971; Emlen 1966; MacArthur 1972; Marten 1973; Pulliam 1973; Werner and Hall 1974; Timin 1973; MacArthur and Pianka 1966; Pearson 1974; Rapport 1971), strategies of movement (Cody 1971; Pyke 1974a, 1974b; Smith 1974a, 1974b), or use of a patchy environment (Royama 1970; MacArthur and Pianka 1966; Pulliam 1973; Krebs et al. 1974; Smith 1974a, 1974b; Tullock 1970; Emlen 1973; Charnov, Orians, and Hyatt 1975). This list includes only the more theoretical contributions and is far from exhaustive. Several studies test the predictions of these formal models (Krebs et al. 1974; Pyke 1974a; Werner and Hall 1974; Smith 1974a, 1974b). In this paper I develop a simple model of breadth of diet for a random-encounter situation. Predictions made by the model will then be compared to the behavior of a real predator, the mantid, Hierodula crassa. I show that this mantid supports the predicted behavior. The final section argues that, even though the behavior is as predicted, several alternative explanations are not excluded. In fact, at least with this type of predator, the foraging behavior may reflect several ultimate factors, with energetic efficiency being only one.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/283054

Cites

2 of 2 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Charnov, E. L.
Venue
The American Naturalist
Published
1976-01
Volume
110
Issue
971
Pages
141-151
ISSN
  • 0003-0147
  • 1537-5323
Cited by
802
References
2
Language
en

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