The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Patterns of Prey Selection: Implications of Predator Foraging Tactics
Abstract
In this paper, I explore the consequences of different predator foraging tactics on patterns of prey selection. Foraging tactics are categorized on the basis of two dichotomies, the first concerning predator encounter tactics and the second concerning the handling tactics employed by predators to subdue prey. The former dichotomy distinguishes between ambush and cruising encounter tactics, the latter between entangling and raptorial handling tactics. Two consistent trends in prey selection are revealed by examining the patterns of prey selection exhibited by a variety of zooplanktivorous, invertebrate predators. The first trend concerns the tendency of ambush predators to take larger and older prey, relative to those taken by cruising predators. This trend was predicted and is presumed to be a general feature of predator-prey interactions. The second trend concerns the tendency of ambush predators feeding on Calanus to exhibit bimodal preyselection patterns, in contrast to the unimodal patterns exhibited by cruisers. This trend was not predicted and is certainly not a general feature of predator-prey interactions, but it does serve to illustrate the heuristic value of the ambushcruising dichotomy. At present, too few studies are available to compare trends associated with the entangling-raptorial dichotomy. However, a brief discussion of the potential interaction effects between predator foraging tactics and prey defensive tactics points out that both dichotomies merit closer examination.
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
The Functional Response of Invertebrate Predators to Prey Density
Holling, C. S. (1966) · Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada · doi:10.4039/entm9848fv · Cited by 1,349
Cited by
Predation on eggs and larvae of marine fishes and the recruitment problem
Bailey, K. M., & Houde, E. D. (1989) · Advances in Marine Biology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2881(08)60187-x · Cited by 1,051
Scharf, F., Juanes, F., & Rountree, R. (2000) · Marine Ecology Progress Series · doi:10.3354/meps208229 · Cited by 893
Age and size-selective predation on larval fishes: the bigger-is-better hypothesis revisited
Litvak, M., & Leggett, W. (1992) · Marine Ecology Progress Series · doi:10.3354/meps081013 · Cited by 272
Medusan morphospace: phylogenetic constraints, biomechanical solutions, and ecological consequences
Costello, J. H., Colin, S. P., & Dabiri, J. O. (2008) · Invertebrate Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-7410.2008.00126.x · Cited by 142
Metadata
- Authors
- Greene, C. H.
- Venue
- The American Naturalist
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 1986-12
- Volume
- 128
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 824-839
- ISSN
- 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5323
- OpenAlex
- W2085151354
- Cited by
- 168
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.67
- 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: Patterns of Prey Selection: Implications of Predator Foraging Tactics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/284608
- The paper
- Greene, C. H. (1986). Patterns of Prey Selection: Implications of Predator Foraging Tactics. The American Naturalist. https://doi.org/10.1086/284608
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.