CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 651Wildlife Ecology and ConservationPrimate Behavior and EcologyAnimal Behavior and Reproduction

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Why Lions Form Groups: Food is Not Enough

Packer, C., Scheel, D., Pusey, A. E.·1990·The American Naturalist
DOI 10.1086/285079
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Extensive observations of foraging female lions reveal that two group sizes maximize foraging success during the season of prey scarcity: one female and five or six females. Foraging success does not vary significantly with group size when prey is abundant. Female lions live in fission-fusion social units (prides) and forage only with members of their own pride. If lion grouping patterns were primarily related to group-size-specific feeding efficiency, females in prides containing fewer than five females should forage alone when prey is scarce, whereas females in larger prides should forage alone or in groups of five or six. However, extensive data on the grouping patterns of radio-collared females show that females in small prides most commonly forage in as large a group as possible, even at the expense of foraging efficiency. Females in large prides most often forage in intermediate group sizes of four or five. However, mothers keep their cubs in a creche and form highly stable maternity groups that are effective in defending the cubs against infanticidal males. Most large prides contain a creche involving four or five mothers, and in the absence of a creche, large prides show no preference for any group size. Females also compete aggressively against neighboring prides, and larger groups successfully repel smaller ones in territorial disputes. Small prides appear to be excessively gregarious in order to compete against larger neighboring prides.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/285079

Cites

41 of 41 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 651

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Packer, C., Scheel, D., & Pusey, A. E.
Affiliations
University of Minnesota (US)
ORCID
Venue
The American Naturalist
Publisher
University of Chicago Press
Published
1990-07
Volume
136
Issue
1
Pages
1-19
ISSN
  • 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5323
DOI
10.1086/285079
OpenAlex
W2061219327
Cited by
651
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 21
FWCI
27.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
The American Naturalist (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Primate Behavior and Ecology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
Keywords
group size, foraging success, fission-fusion societies, pride, prey scarcity, infanticide, territorial disputes

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