The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Temporal Variation in Danger Drives Antipredator Behavior: The Predation Risk Allocation Hypothesis
Abstract
The rapid response of animals to changes in predation risk has allowed behavioral ecologists to learn much about antipredator decision making. A largely unappreciated aspect of such decision making, however, is that it may be fundamentally driven by the very thing that allows it to be so readily studied: temporal variation in risk. We show theoretically that temporal variability in risk leaves animals with the problem of allocating feeding and antipredator efforts across different risk situations. Our analysis suggests that an animal should exhibit its greatest antipredator behavior in high-risk situations that are brief and infrequent. An animal should also allocate more antipredator effort to high-risk situations and more feeding to low-risk situations, with an increase in the relative degree of risk in high-risk situations. However, the need to feed leaves an animal with little choice but to decrease its allocation of antipredator effort to high-risk situations as they become more frequent or lengthy; here, antipredator effort in low-risk situations may drop to low levels as an animal allocates as much feeding as possible to brief periods of low risk. These conclusions hold under various scenarios of interrupted feeding, state-dependent behavior, and stochastic variation in risk situations. Our analysis also suggests that a common experimental protocol, in which prey animals are maintained under low risk and then exposed to a brief "pulse" of high risk, is likely to overestimate the intensity of antipredator behavior expected under field situations or chronic exposure to high risk.
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
PREDATOR VIGILANCE AND GROUP SIZE IN MAMMALS AND BIRDS: A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
ELGAR, M. A. (1989) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.1989.tb00636.x · Cited by 1,119
Predation risk and the cost of being fat
Gosler, A. G., Greenwood, J. J. D., & Perrins, C. (1995) · Nature · doi:10.1038/377621a0 · Cited by 391
Population Consequences of Predation‐Sensitive Foraging: The Serengeti Wildebeest
Sinclair, A. R. E., & Arcese, P. (1995) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/1939353 · Cited by 363
Individual Behavior and Higher-Order Species Interactions
Werner, E. E. (1992) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/285395 · Cited by 226
Cited by
Relationships between direct predation and risk effects
Creel, S., & Christianson, D. (2008) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.12.004 · Cited by 1,238
Trophic cascades: the primacy of trait‐mediated indirect interactions
Schmitz, O. J., Krivan, V., & Ovadia, O. (2004) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2003.00560.x · Cited by 1,081
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
Childress, M. J., & Lung, M. A. (2003) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1006/anbe.2003.2217 · Cited by 304
Kauffman, M. J., Brodie, J. F., & Jules, E. S. (2010) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/09-1949.1 · Cited by 275
Time and space in general models of antipredator response: tests with wolves and elk
Creel, S., Winnie, J. A., Christianson, D., & Liley, S. (2008) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.07.006 · Cited by 194
Woody, E. Z., & Szechtman, H. (2011) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.08.003 · Cited by 195
Lion hunting behaviour and vegetation structure in an African savanna
Loarie, S. R., Tambling, C. J., & Asner, G. P. (2013) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.01.018 · Cited by 123
Klompmaker, A. A., Kelley, P. H., Chattopadhyay, D., Clements, J. C., Huntley, J. W., & Kowalewski, M. (2019) · Earth-Science Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.02.020 · Cited by 120
Prey Risk Allocation In A Grazing Ecosystem
Gude, J. A., Garrott, R. A., Borkowski, J. J., & King, F. (2006) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/04-0623 · Cited by 110
A survey of the effects of wolf predation risk on pregnancy rates and calf recruitment in elk
Creel, S., Christianson, D. A., & Winnie, J. A. (2011) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/11-0768.1 · Cited by 58
Tambling, C. J., Druce, D. J., Hayward, M. W., Castley, J. G., Adendorff, J., & Kerley, G. I. H. (2012) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/11-1770.1 · Cited by 57
Predator Cues Reduce American Beaver Use of Foraging Trails
Severud, W. J., Belant, J. L., Bruggink, J. G., & Windels, S. K. (2011) · Utah State University · doi:10.26077/n3q0-7352 · Cited by 30
Yamada, J., Shawe-Taylor, J., & Fountas, Z. (2020) · 2020 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn48605.2020.9206765 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- Lima, S. L., & Bednekoff, P. A.
- Venue
- The American Naturalist
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 1999-06
- Volume
- 153
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 649-659
- ISSN
- 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5323
- OpenAlex
- W2036451061
- Cited by
- 1,484
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 15.17
- 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
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.
