Cited by 330Wildlife Ecology and ConservationAnimal Behavior and ReproductionAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies

Effects of predation risk on group size, vigilance, and foraging behavior in an African ungulate community

Creel, S., Schuette, P., Christianson, D.·2014·Behavioral Ecology

Abstract

Predators alter prey dynamics by direct killing and through the costs of antipredator responses or risk effects.Antipredator behavior includes proactive responses to long-term variation in risk (e.g., grouping patterns) and reactive responses to short-term variation in risk (e.g., intense vigilance).In a 3-year field study, we measured variation in antipredator responses and the foraging costs of these responses for 5 ungulates (zebra, wildebeest, Grant's gazelle, impala, and giraffe) that comprised more than 90% of the prey community available to the 2 locally dominant predators, lions and spotted hyenas.Using a model-selection approach, we examined how vigilance and group size responded to attributes of the predator, prey, and environment.We found that 1) the strength of antipredator responses was affected by attributes of the predator, prey, and environment in which they met; 2) grouping and vigilance were complementary responses; 3) grouping was a proactive response to the use of dangerous habitats, whereas vigilance was a reactive response to finer cues about predation risk; 4) increased vigilance caused a large reduction in foraging for some species (but not all); and 5) there was no clear relationship between direct predation rates and the foraging costs of antipredator responses.Broadly, our results show that antipredator responses and their costs vary in a complex manner among prey species, the predators they face, and the environment in which they meet.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/beheco/aru050

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Creel, S., Schuette, P., & Christianson, D.
Affiliations
  • Montana State University (US)
  • University of Arizona (US)
Venue
Behavioral Ecology
Published
2014-04-06
Volume
25
Issue
4
Pages
773-784
ISSN
  • 1045-2249 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-7279
OpenAlex
W2106228428
Cited by
330
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 5
FWCI
14.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behavioral Ecology (publishedVersion)
  • Montana State University ScholarWorks (Montana State University) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1145749, 0642393)
  • Panthera
  • Montana State University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Keywords
predation risk, antipredator behavior, group size, sustained attention, foraging costs, ungulates, zebra, wildebeest, Grant's gazelle, impala, giraffe, lion, spotted hyena, predator-prey interactions, African savanna

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