The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Rodent foraging is affected by indirect, but not by direct, cues of predation risk
Open accessAbstract
We used foraging trays to determine whether oldfield mice, Peromyscus polionotus, altered foraging in response to direct cues of predation risk (urine of native and nonnative predators) and indirect cues of predation risk (foraging microhabitat, precipitation, and moon illumination). The proportion of seeds remaining in each tray (a measure of the giving-up density [GUD]) was used to measure risk perceived by mice. Mice did not alter their GUD when presented with cues of native predators (bobcats, Lynx rufus, and red foxes, Vulpes vulpes), recently introduced predators (coyotes, Canis latrans), nonnative predators (ocelots, Leopardus pardalis), a native herbivore (white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus), or a water control. Rather, GUD was related to microhabitat: rodents removed more seeds from foraging trays sheltered beneath vegetative cover compared with exposed trays outside of cover. Rodents also removed more seeds during nights with precipitation and when moon illumination was low. Our results suggest that P. polionotus used indirect cues rather than direct cues to assess risk of vertebrate predation. Indirect cues may be more reliable than are direct scent cues for estimating risk from multiple vertebrate predators that present the most risk in open environments.
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
Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists
Quinn, G. P., & Keough, M. J. (2002) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511806384 · Cited by 10,674 · cited 1×
“This approach is conservative because power increases if a reduction in seed removal of the same magnitude occurs in response to more than one urine type (Quinn and Keough, 2002).”
BackgroundLittell, R. C. (1996) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 10,341
Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus
Lima, S. L., & Dill, L. M. (1990) · Canadian Journal of Zoology · doi:10.1139/z90-092 · Cited by 8,196
Barr, A. J. (1979) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 7,198
Blair, W. F., Hall, E. R., & Kelson, K. R. (1959) · The Southwestern Naturalist · doi:10.2307/3669094 · Cited by 2,480
Nonlethal Effects in the Ecology of Predator-Prey Interactions
Lima, S. L. (1998) · BioScience · doi:10.2307/1313225 · Cited by 1,852
Temporal Variation in Danger Drives Antipredator Behavior: The Predation Risk Allocation Hypothesis
Lima, S. L., & Bednekoff, P. A. (1999) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/303202 · Cited by 1,484
The scent of death: Chemosensory assessment of predation risk by prey animals
Kats, L. B., & Dill, L. M. (1998) · Écoscience · doi:10.1080/11956860.1998.11682468 · Cited by 1,441
Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk, and competition
Brown, J. S. (1988) · Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology · doi:10.1007/bf00395696 · Cited by 1,401
The Ecology of Fear: Optimal Foraging, Game Theory, and Trophic Interactions
Brown, J. S., Laundre, J. W., & Gurung, M. (1999) · Journal of Mammalogy · doi:10.2307/1383287 · Cited by 1,347
Cited by
The effects of predator odors in mammalian prey species: A review of field and laboratory studies
Apfelbach, R., Blanchard, C. D., Blanchard, R. J., Hayes, R. A., & McGregor, I. S. (2005) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.05.005 · Cited by 855
Meta-analysis of foraging and predation risk trade-offs in terrestrial systems
Verdolin, J. L. (2006) · Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology · doi:10.1007/s00265-006-0172-6 · Cited by 490
Trent, N. L., & Menard, J. L. (2010) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2010.04.035 · Cited by 76
Metadata
- Authors
- Orrock, J. L.
- Venue
- Behavioral Ecology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2004-05-01
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 433-437
- ISSN
- 1045-2249 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-7279
- OpenAlex
- W2145328094
- Cited by
- 355
- References
- 35
- FWCI
- 6.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Rodent foraging is affected by indirect, but not by direct, cues of predation risk. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/beheco/arh031
- The paper
- Orrock, J. L. (2004). Rodent foraging is affected by indirect, but not by direct, cues of predation risk. Behavioral Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arh031
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.