The DOI matches its Crossref record; 117 of the 117 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Determining the fitness consequences of antipredation behavior
Abstract
Any animal whose form or behavior facilitates the avoidance of predators or escape when attacked by predators will have a greater probability of surviving to breed and therefore greater probability of producing offspring (i.e., fitness). Although in theory the fitness consequences of any antipredation behavior can simply be measured by the resultant probability of survival or death, determining the functional significance of antipredation behavior presents a surprising problem. In this review we draw attention to the problem that fitness consequences of antipredation behaviors cannot be determined without considering the potential for reduction of predation risk, or increased reproductive output, through other compensatory behaviors than the behaviors under study. We believe we have reached the limits of what we can ever understand about the ecological effects of antipredation behavior from empirical studies that simply correlate a single behavior with an apparent fitness consequence. Future empirical studies must involve many behaviors to consider the range of potential compensation to predation risk. This is because antipredation behaviors are a composite of many behaviors that an animal can adjust to accomplish its ends. We show that observed variation in antipredation behavior does not have to reflect fitness and we demonstrate that few studies can draw unambiguous conclusions about the fitness consequences of antipredation behavior. Lastly, we provide suggestions of how future research should best be targeted so that, even in the absence of death rates or changes in reproductive output, reasonable inferences of the fitness consequences of antipredation behaviors can be made.
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
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
Coping styles in animals: current status in behavior and stress-physiology
Koolhaas, J. M., Korte, S. M., De Boer, S. F., Van Der Vegt, B. J., Van Reenen, C. G., Hopster, H., De Jong, I. C., Ruis, M. A. W., & Blokhuis, H. J. (1999) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0149-7634(99)00026-3 · Cited by 2,999 · cited 1×
“These approaches can also be more fruitful because it has become well established that individuals differ consistently in how they cope with a variety of circumstances (reviewed in Koolhaas et al., 1999).”
BackgroundThe 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
Emergent impacts of multiple predators on prey
Sih, A., Englund, G., & Wooster, D. (1998) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/s0169-5347(98)01437-2 · Cited by 1,344
The Economics of Fleeing from Predators
Ydenberg, R. C., & Dill, L. M. (1986) · Advances in the Study of Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0065-3454(08)60192-8 · Cited by 1,342
Lima, S. L. (1998) · Advances in the Study of Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0065-3454(08)60366-6 · Cited by 1,336
Wolves, elk, and bison: reestablishing the "landscape of fear" in Yellowstone National Park, U.S.A.
Laundré, J. W., Hernández, L., & Altendorf, K. B. (2001) · Canadian Journal of Zoology · doi:10.1139/z01-094 · Cited by 1,216
Hazardous duty pay and the foraging cost of predation
Brown, J. S., & Kotler, B. P. (2004) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00661.x · Cited by 1,121
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
Cited by
Guidelines for the treatment of animals in behavioural research and teaching
(2012) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.10.031 · Cited by 847
Model selection and model averaging in behavioural ecology: the utility of the IT-AIC framework
Richards, S. A., Whittingham, M. J., & Stephens, P. A. (2011) · Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology · doi:10.1007/s00265-010-1035-8 · Cited by 566
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
Species differences in responses to captivity: stress, welfare and the comparative method
Mason, G. J. (2010) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2010.08.011 · Cited by 470
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Lind, J., & Cresswell, W.
- Venue
- Behavioral Ecology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-07-13
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 945-956
- ISSN
- 1045-2249 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-7279
- OpenAlex
- W2160827217
- Cited by
- 395
- References
- 117
- FWCI
- 18.69
- 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: Determining the fitness consequences of antipredation behavior. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/beheco/ari075
- The paper
- Lind, J., & Cresswell, W. (2005). Determining the fitness consequences of antipredation behavior. Behavioral Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ari075
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.