Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 523

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Evolution of Cooperative Hunting

Packer, Craig, Ruttan, Lore·1988·The American Naturalist

Abstract

Using a series of game-theoretical models, we develop two major predictions concerning the evolution of cooperative hunting. First, we specify the conditions under which individuals should hunt in groups rather than solitarily. When a group captures only a single prey per hunt, the expected benefits from cooperation rarely outweigh the advantages of hunting alone, since the prey must be divided between group members. Cooperation to capture the same prey can confer sufficient mutual benefit only when solitaries have low foraging efficiency; otherwise, each individual would do better to hunt separate prey. In contrast, species that capture multiple prey in a single hunt are not faced with similar disadvantages from grouping and should not be similarly constrained to hunt alone by high individual foraging efficiency. However, these predictions are not well supported by comparisons of individual hunting success in species that hunt alone and in groups. Consistent with previous reviewers, we consider that cooperative hunting in many species is more often a consequence of gregariousness than its evolutionary cause. However, cooperative hunting does often appear to be an important cause of grouping in species that take multiple prey. Second, we specify the conditions under which group members should hunt cooperatively. A temptation to cheat is prevalent in species that capture prey large enough to be scavenged by noncooperative companions. Cheaters can thereby avoid the costs of hunting and prey capture. Cooperation is most likely when an individual has a low probability of capturing a large prey by itself. Under these conditions, a second hunter can sufficiently increase the pair's chances of capturing the prey to overcome his own costs of participating in the hunt. However, the temptation to cheat increases with group size, since each additional hunter is decreasingly likely to overcome his costs of hunting. In contrast, there is no temptation to cheat when prey size is so small that only the successful hunter can feed from the captured prey. Data from 28 studies of group hunting generally conform to these predictions. Group members always cooperate when hunting small prey. When groups hunt large prey, cooperation mostly occurs when solo hunting success is very low, whereas cheating appears to be common when solo hunting success is high and group size is large. Although repeated hunting of a single large prey often conforms to the conditions of the iterated prisoner's dilemma, we have little evidence that cooperation has evolved from a "tit-for-tat" hunting strategy. We specify the theoretical effects of kinship, individual differences in hunting ability, and behavioral dominance on the evolution of cooperative hunting of single large prey. We show that "tit-for-tat" is unlikely to be found where there are extreme individual differences in hunting ability.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/284844

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 523

Metadata

Authors
Packer, C., & Ruttan, L.
Venue
The American Naturalist
Published
1988-08
Volume
132
Issue
2
Pages
159-198
ISSN
  • 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5323
OpenAlex
W2045826839
Cited by
523
References
3
FWCI
27.58
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 Evolution of Cooperative Hunting. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/284844
The paper
Packer, C., & Ruttan, L. (1988). The Evolution of Cooperative Hunting. The American Naturalist. https://doi.org/10.1086/284844

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.