The DOI matches its Crossref record; 63 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effects of predation risk on group size, vigilance, and foraging behavior in an African ungulate community
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Gregarious animals in general increase grouping patterns during risky conditions to increase their chances of detecting a predator [41].”
From Effects of Vegetation Structure on the Location of Lion Kill Sites in African Thicket (2016) · cites this paper as [41]
Citations
Cites
Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R
Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N., Saveliev, A. A., & Smith, G. M. (2009) · Statistics for Biology and Health · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-87458-6 · Cited by 17,963
An Experimental Test of the Effects of Predation Risk on Habitat Use in Fish
Werner, E. E., Gilliam, J. F., Hall, D. J., & Mittelbach, G. G. (1983) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/1937508 · Cited by 1,676
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
Self-citationThe Serengeti Lion: A Study of Predator-Prey Relations
Schaller, G. B. (1972) · Cited by 1,220
Perceived Predation Risk Reduces the Number of Offspring Songbirds Produce per Year
Zanette, L., White, A. F., Allen, M. C., & Clinchy, M. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1210908 · Cited by 1,191
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 1,130
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
The Spotted Hyena. A Study of Predation and Social Behavior
Southern, H. N., & Kruuk, H. (1973) · Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.2307/3145 · Cited by 995
Antipredator defenses in birds and mammals
(2006) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.43-2800 · Cited by 958
ELK ALTER HABITAT SELECTION AS AN ANTIPREDATOR RESPONSE TO WOLVES
Creel, S., Winnie, J., Maxwell, B., Hamlin, K., & Creel, M. (2005) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/05-0032 · Cited by 774 · cited 1×
“In contrast, elk (Cervus elaphus) shifted out of preferred grazing sites in open meadows into the cover of coniferous woodland in response to the immediate presence of wolves (Canis lupus) (Creel et al. 2005).”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- 1991, 29, 445
- 2010, WYOMING WILDL, 11, 2
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–300 of 330
Makin, D. F., & Kotler, B. P. (2019) · Behavioural Processes · doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2019.103922 · Cited by 5
Quero, A., Zuanon, L. A., Vieira, C., & Gonzaga, M. O. (2020) · acta ethologica · doi:10.1007/s10211-020-00342-x · Cited by 5
“…e Conservação de Recursos Naturais, Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Uberlândia, MG, Brazil 2 Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Uberlândia, MG, Brazil specific abiotic conditions (Guevara et al. 2011, Zöttl et al. 2013, Creel et al. 2014, Hoffman and Avilés 2017).”
BackgroundMolina, F., Smith, J. A., Donadío, E., Middleton, A. D., Pauli, J. N., & Goheen, J. R. (2023) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1002/ecs2.4701 · Cited by 5
“…2005; Ford et al., 2014; Holbrook & Schmitt, 1988; Sih, 1982), reducing movement rates (e.g., Anholt & Werner, 1995; Sih, 1982), altering daily patterns of activity (e.g., Bakker et al., 2005; Schmitz et al., 1997), and spending more time vigilant (e.g., Brown et al., 1999; Creel et al., 2014).”
BackgroundEffects of the social environment on movement-integrated habitat selectionPreprint
Webber, Q. M. R., Prokopenko, C. M., Kingdon, K. A., Turner, J. W., & Wal, E. V. (2021) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2021.02.11.430740 · Cited by 5
Cheatgrass invasion of sagebrush steppe : impacts of vegetation structure on small mammals
Bachen, D. A. (2014) · Montana State University ScholarWorks (Montana State University) · Cited by 5
Ecological System with Fear Induced Group Defense and Prey Refuge
Yadav, S., Tripathi, J. P., Bhuria, S., Tiwari, S. K., Tripathi, D., Tiwari, V., Upadhyay, R. K., & Kang, Y. (2025) · Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems · doi:10.1007/s12591-025-00712-6 · Cited by 4
Diversity of risk assessment patterns in antipredator behavior of goitered gazelles
Blank, D. A. (2018) · Behavioural Processes · doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2018.12.008 · Cited by 4
Zha, D., Zhao, B., Zhou, Z., & Li, C. (2019) · Waterbirds · doi:10.1675/063.042.0205 · Cited by 4
Are there different vigilance strategies between types of social units in Lama guanicoe?
Taraborelli, P. A., Moreno, P., & Torres, M. E. M. (2019) · Behavioural Processes · doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2019.103914 · Cited by 4
Peterson, M. I., & Kitano, S. (2021) · Environmental Biology of Fishes · doi:10.1007/s10641-021-01166-9 · Cited by 4
Dwijayanti, E., Mahyana, Nurlaily, U., & Widarto, T. H. (2021) · IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · doi:10.1088/1755-1315/948/1/012035 · Cited by 4
Panebianco, A., Gregorio, P. F., Schroeder, N., Marozzi, A., Ovejero, R., Heidel, L., Peña, F., Leggieri, L., Taraborelli, P. A., & Carmanchahi, P. (2022) · Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology · doi:10.1007/s00265-021-03104-2 · Cited by 5
Predators and habitat association of post‐settlement snapper (Chrysophrys auratus)
Parsons, D. M., Taylor, R., Hughes, R., Middleton, C., Gublin, Y., & Levell, D. (2022) · Journal of Fish Biology · doi:10.1111/jfb.15222 · Cited by 4
“…by postsettlement snapper in field studies (Parsons et al., 2013; Parsons et al., 2014a), with elevated habitat use observed under predation threat by Ross et al. (2007), and an adaptive antipredator defence strategy (i.e., schooling) based on environmental context (e.g., Creel et al., 2014).”
BackgroundThe Impacts of Reintroducing Cheetahs on the Vigilance Behaviour of Two Naïve Prey Species
Welch, R. J., Schmitt, M. H., Mendela, T., Bernard, R. T. F., & Parker, D. M. (2022) · African Journal of Wildlife Research · doi:10.3957/056.052.0146 · Cited by 5
Kiffner, C., Giliba, R. A., Fust, P., Loos, J., & Waltert, M. (2023) · African Journal of Ecology · doi:10.1111/aje.13200 · Cited by 4
“…variation in natural or anthropogenic predation risk, resource availability, social factors, with fitness-relevant implications (Bond et al., 2019; Creel et al., 2014; Krause & Ruxton, 2002; TABLE 2 Sample size corrected AIC scores for species-specific detection models for conventional detection…”
Exploring the connections between giraffe skin disease and lion predation
Muneza, A., Linden, D. W., Kimaro, M. H., Dickman, A., Macdonald, D. W., Roloff, G. J., Hayward, M. W., & Montgomery, R. A. (2021) · Journal of Zoology · doi:10.1111/jzo.12930 · Cited by 5
Orazi, V., Panaccio, M., Lovari, S., Belardi, I., von Hardenberg, A., Bassano, B., & Ferretti, F. (2025) · Frontiers in Zoology · doi:10.1186/s12983-025-00559-1 · Cited by 5
“In multi-prey systems with shared predators, group size variation with increasing predation risk can follow species-specific patterns, either increasing or decreasing [26].”
Belowground effects of ground‐dwelling large herbivores in forest ecosystems
Ribeiro, L. G., Melo‐Dias, M., Saraiva, B. M. P., Villar, N., & Galetti, M. (2025) · Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2656.70193 · Cited by 4
Olson, E. R., & Deelen, T. R. V. (2023) · acta ethologica · doi:10.1007/s10211-023-00430-8 · Cited by 3
“Spatial and temporal variation in predation risk also appear to lead to variation in the group size effect (Lung and Childress 2007; Creel et al. 2014; Vander et al. 2013).”
InfluentialFan, X., Tang, K. H. D., Liu, S., Liu, Y., & Smith, C. K. (2024) · Earth · doi:10.3390/earth5040037 · Cited by 3
“Dertien et al. and Creel et al. propose that a distance of more than 1 km should be maintained between humans and large wild mammals [85,109], such as wildebeests, to minimize the environmental pressure on these animals.”
Yang, H., Su, Y., Li, B., & Guo, Q. (2025) · Information Geography · doi:10.1016/j.infgeo.2025.100019 · Cited by 4
Predator experience enhances giraffe vigilance to oxpecker alarm calls
Baotic, A., & Szipl, G. (2025) · BMC Biology · doi:10.1186/s12915-025-02395-5 · Cited by 3
“Vigilance behavior was recorded as the primary response variable, given its established role in predator detection and risk assessment in African ungulates [32].”
Baotic, A., & Szipl, G. (2025) · Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.3389/fevo.2025.1634218 · Cited by 3
Hejcmanová, P., Gašparová, K., Fedorova, T., Vukelić, M., Fennessy, J., Zabeirou, A. R. M., Rabeil, T., & Brandlová, K. (2024) · Frontiers in Conservation Science · doi:10.3389/fcosc.2024.1459960 · Cited by 3
“Many herbivore species allocate less time to vigilance and more to resting with increasing group size and higher risk of predation (Creel et al., 2014; Beauchamp et al., 2021).”
Pal, D., Mondal, R., Kesh, D., & Mukherjee, D. (2025) · Bulletin of Mathematical Biology · doi:10.1007/s11538-025-01411-7 · Cited by 3
“It was reported that group defence as an anti-predator response reduces the predation risk of preys (Hass and Valenzuela 2002; Creel et al. 2014).”
Yu, F., Yu, C., Guo, S., Wang, X., Li, J., & Li, Z. (2025) · Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2656.70044 · Cited by 3
Responses of a large herbivore to predation risk are modulated by intrinsic and extrinsic factors
Muthersbaugh, M., Saldo, E. A., Jensen, A., Cantrell, J., Ruth, C. R., Ross, B., Kilgo, J., & Jachowski, D. (2025) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1002/ecs2.70252 · Cited by 2
Living in a risky landscape : elephant movement in response to poaching
Ihwagi, F. W. (2018) · doi:10.3990/1.9789036546126 · Cited by 3
Mood swings in cows : Cognitive and physiological assessments
Kremer, L. (2022) · doi:10.18174/562024 · Cited by 3
Changes in waterfowl movement behavior in response to hunting pressure
Beatty, K. E., Huck, N. R., & Buderman, F. E. (2025) · Movement Ecology · doi:10.1186/s40462-025-00565-2 · Cited by 2
“Additionally, increased vigilance, or stationary assessments of the surroundings, can negatively affect body condition and reproductive success because it detracts from foraging [50, 51].”
Bordes, C., Ammeter, M., Lu, C., Beukeboom, R., Goll, Y., Bourdiol, J., & Ilany, A. (2025) · Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2656.70122 · Cited by 2
“…predation risk is commonly associated with increased sociability, reflected in traits like group size, degree centrality and strength centrality (Creel et al., 2014 ; Finkbeiner et al., 2012 ; Hasenjager & Dugatkin, 2017 ; Heathcote et al., 2017 ; Lehtonen & Jaatinen, 2016; Sundaresan et al.,…”
Toledo, S. P. H., Pérez‐González, J., & de Trucios, S. J. H. (2025) · Land · doi:10.3390/land14091845 · Cited by 2
Dynamics of a fractional order predator-prey system with double Allee effect and group defense
Mondal, R., Pal, D., Takeuchi, Y., Mukherjee, D., Kesh, D., & Saha, A. (2025) · Chinese Journal of Physics · doi:10.1016/j.cjph.2025.09.020 · Cited by 2
Spatiotemporal antipredator responses of capybaras in areas with and without apex predators
Avila, A. B., Corriale, M. J., Blanco, Y. E. D., Bitetti, M. S. D., Paviolo, A., Donadío, E., & Angelo, C. D. (2025) · Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology · doi:10.1007/s00265-025-03666-5 · Cited by 2
“This usually results in reactive responses (Creel 2018 ), like flight (Stankowich 2008), active avoidance (Courbin et al. 2016), or a short-term increase in vigilance (Blanchard and Fritz 2007; Creel et al. 2014).”
Khan, M. M. (2025) · Mathematics and Computers in Simulation · doi:10.1016/j.matcom.2025.11.028 · Cited by 2
Taylor, K., van der Merwe, S., Deacon, F., Grobbelaar, A., & Baotic, A. (2025) · Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1002/ece3.72763 · Cited by 2
“In most mammals, vigilance typically declines as group size increases, reflecting the classic ‘many eyes’ effect (Roberts 1996; Hunter and Skinner 1998; Creel et al. 2014; Beauchamp et al. 2021).”
Linson, A., Beauchamp, G., & Barve, S. (2026) · Journal of The Royal Society Interface · doi:10.1098/rsif.2025.0687 · Cited by 3
Pal, D., Mondal, C., Kesh, D., & Mukherjee, D. (2026) · International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos · doi:10.1142/s0218127426501385 · Cited by 2
Xu, W., Wang, M., Blank, D. A., da Silva, A. A., Yang, W., Ruckstuhl, K. E., & Alves, J. (2022) · Biology · doi:10.3390/biology11081236 · Cited by 2
“Grouping and vigilance are complementary responses of antipredator behavior in ungulates [37].”
BackgroundHayward, M. W., Hayward, G. J., & Kerley, G. I. H. (2023) · Ecological Research · doi:10.1111/1440-1703.12397 · Cited by 3
Ihwagi, F. W., Skidmore, A. K., Bastille-Rosseau, G., Wang, T., Toxopeus, A. G., & Douglas‐Hamilton, I. (2024) · Global Ecology and Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2024.e02911 · Cited by 2
In the Mix: Patterns of Warthog Herding Behaviour in Single‐ and Mixed‐Species Herds
Jørgensen, A. V., Stears, K., & Schmitt, M. H. (2024) · African Journal of Ecology · doi:10.1111/aje.13349 · Cited by 2
Bresnan, C. E., Creel, S., Edwards, C. W., Gooley, R. M., Heidebrink, S., Koepfli, K., McShea, W. J., Pukazhenthi, B. S., Stutzman, J., & Shamon, H. (2024) · Canadian Journal of Zoology · doi:10.1139/cjz-2024-0077 · Cited by 2
Self-citationKasprzykowski, Z., & Goławski, A. (2024) · Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology · doi:10.1007/s00265-024-03555-3 · Cited by 2
“Wildlife species often avoid areas where predators are active, not only because of the mere threat of predation but also its significant impact on diverse aspects of their lives like parental care, foraging and resting (Downes 2001; Cresswell 2008 ; Creel et al. 2014).”
Hofmann, G., & Mettke‐Hofmann, C. (2025) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani15020214 · Cited by 2
Dynamic landscapes of fear and safety alter prey refuge use in freshwater habitats
Alexander, M. J., & Moore, P. A. (2025) · Behaviour · doi:10.1163/1568539x-bja10315 · Cited by 2
“Behaviours such as foraging, mating, and even simply moving through a habitat may be high-risk, as prey vigilance is sometimes relatively low when participating in these activities (Creel et al., 2014).”
Freidly, E. N., Wuensch, M. A., Michael, T. C., & Ward, D. (2025) · African Journal of Ecology · doi:10.1111/aje.70070 · Cited by 2
When, where, and how prey pair antipredator behaviors to natural and anthropogenic mortality risks
Egan, M. E., Weber, A. M., Gorman, N. T., Eichholz, M. W., Skinner, D., Schlichting, P. E., & Bastille‐Rousseau, G. (2025) · Movement Ecology · doi:10.1186/s40462-025-00576-z · Cited by 3
“Additionally, our results suggest a potential mechanism for mesopredators to induce risk effects [13, 14, 78].”
Saout, S. L., Padié, S., Chamaillé‐Jammes, S., Chollet, S., Côté, S., Morellet, N., Pattison, J., Harris, E., & Martin, J. (2014) · Cited by 2
Bartel, S. L., Kilgo, J. C., & Orrock, J. L. (2023) · Behavioral Ecology · doi:10.1093/beheco/arad071 · Cited by 1
Reactive response to predation risk affects foraging time of hares, yet not their phosphorus intake
Brandsen, S., Vermorken, L. S., Kuipers, H., van Wieren, S. E., de Jonge, I. K., & Weterings, M. J. A. (2023) · Mammalian Biology · doi:10.1007/s42991-023-00385-0 · Cited by 1
“Prey that is effective in avoiding predator detection is often less effective in escaping predators (Creel et al. 2014).”
Activity of Asiatic lions in relation to activity of prey and kleptoparasitism
Banerjee, K., Dave, C., Chauhan, K. S., Mukherjee, S., & Jhala, Y. V. (2024) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2024.10.002 · Cited by 1
Zebra Risk Perception in a Landscape of Fear
Chen, Y., Blumstein, D. T., Boyle, D. M., Bartolotta, N., Brown, J. E., Kissui, B. M., Waltert, M., & Kiffner, C. (2025) · Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1002/ece3.71275 · Cited by 1
“Creel et al. (2014) demonstrated that vigilance in five African ungulate species was better explained by the continuous distance between the ungulate herd and predators than by a binary presence/absence measure of predators.”
InfluentialDamm, J., Dias, P. A. D., Negrín, A. R., Schaffner, C. M., Dell’Anna, F., & Aureli, F. (2025) · Hormones and Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2025.105824 · Cited by 1
The long-term dynamic behaviors of a stochastic predator-prey model with fear and group defense
Cui, Y., Huang, S., Li, X., & Shi, S. (2025) · Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - B · doi:10.3934/dcdsb.2025166 · Cited by 1
Wild boar feeding habits before versus after wolf recolonization
Belardi, I., Massei, G., Lazzeri, L., Riggio, C., & Ferretti, F. (2026) · Journal of Zoology · doi:10.1111/jzo.70088 · Cited by 1
“Typical examples include African herbivores forming larger groups in open areas than in more vegetated sites where the possibility of being detected by predators is lower (Creel et al., 2014; Jar-man, 1974).”
Kessy, B. M., Arukwe, A., Mbise, F. P., Hariohay, K. M., Palme, R., Røskaft, E., & Ranke, P. S. (2026) · Global Ecology and Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2026.e04130 · Cited by 1
From female choice to social structure: Modeling harem formation in camelids
González, T. I., Abramson, G., & Laguna, M. F. (2026) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2026.111542 · Cited by 1
Gomez, S., Boyers, M., Caron, A., Cornélis, D., de Knegt, H., Garine-Wichatitsky, M. D., Eikelboom, J. A. J., Kilian, J. W., Owen‐Smith, N., Prin, T., et al. (2026) · Oecologia · doi:10.1007/s00442-025-05860-8 · Cited by 1
“African ungulates with high predation risks are known to carry out a large range of anti-predator behaviours (e.g. vigilance; Valeix et al. 2009; Périquet et al. 2012; Creel et al. 2014), but the role of wind on these behaviours remains poorly studied.”
van Rooyen, N. T., Thel, L., Venter, J. A., Fritz, H., Prugnolle, F., & Rougeron, V. (2026) · Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1002/ece3.73609 · Cited by 1
“Proactive responses are behavioral adjustments made in antic-ipation of predation risk, based on prior knowledge of predator locations and preferred habitats (Creel and Christianson 2008; Creel et al. 2014).”
Ma, R., Yu, X., Huang, C., Xue, F., Zhou, Y., Liu, J., Hou, R., Bi, W., Gu, J., Zhang, L., et al. (2026) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani16193050 · Cited by 1
“Rather than merely limiting https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16193050 the observable spatial avoidance capabilities of the species, this setting provides highly applicable baseline data for optimizing the size and structural composition of conservation enclosures [59].”
InfluentialRafalski, A. V., Pangle, K. L., & Peacor, S. D. (2023) · Oikos · doi:10.1111/oik.09791 · Cited by 1
Rubenstein, D. I. (2023) · Fascinating life sciences · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-27144-1_12 · Cited by 1
Behavioral responses of a clonal fish to perceived predation risk
Aguiñaga, J., Jin, S., Pesati, I., & Laskowski, K. L. (2024) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.17547 · Cited by 1
“Large groups can thus exhibit greater collective vigilance and overall reduced probability of individual prey capture through the dilution and confusion effects ( Creel, Schuette & Christianson, 2014 ; Lima, 1995 ).”
Rawleigh, G., Edwards, M. A., Epperson, D., & Nielsen, S. E. (2024) · Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1002/ece3.70385 · Cited by 1
“As such, distance to forest cover or wetland edge can be used as a proxy for predation risk, with increased distance from the forest edge increasing the potential for predation (Hernández and Laundré 2005; Bergman et al. 2006; Creel, Schuette, and Christianson 2014).”
BackgroundHendrix, J. G., Brown, C. D., Gosse, J. W., & Wal, E. V. (2025) · Canadian Journal of Zoology · doi:10.1139/cjz-2024-0150 · Cited by 1
The key role of cheaters in the persistence of cooperation
Babajanyan, S. G., Wolf, Y. I., Koonin, E. V., & Rochman, N. D. (2026) · BMC Biology · doi:10.1186/s12915-025-02492-5 · Cited by 1
“Other examples include, but are not limited to, populations of grazing animals [65] and solid tumors [66].”
Spatial overlap of sea ice-associated predators and prey in western Hudson Bay
Rodrigues, C. W., Derocher, A. E., Roth, J. D., McGeachy, D., & Pilfold, N. W. (2026) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0328953 · Cited by 1
Северцов, А. С. (2018) · Biology Bulletin · doi:10.1134/s1062359018070142 · Cited by 1
“The anxiety behavior is enhanced if there is a potential danger (Lima and Dill, 1990; Sundell et al., 2004; CluttonBrock and Thorton, 2011; Creel et al., 2014).”
BackgroundGarris, S. S., Rohrer, K. N., & Ferkin, M. H. (2022) · Behaviour · doi:10.1163/1568539x-bja10191 · Cited by 1
Bonoan, J. T., Weladji, R. B., Body, G., Holand, Ø., & Røed, K. H. (2020) · Spectrum Research Repository (Concordia University) · Cited by 1
Drone Surveys Revealed Bottom-Up, And Not Top-Down, Effects On The Marsh Deer Local AbundancePreprint
Brack, I. V., Kindel, A., Berto, D. O., Cordeiro, J. L. P., Coelho, I. P., Lahoz‐Monfort, J. J., & de Oliveira, L. F. B. (2021) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-884511/v1 · Cited by 1
Do predators keep prey healthy or make them sicker? A meta-analysisPreprint
Richards, R. L., Drake, J. M., & Ezenwa, V. O. (2021) · doi:10.22541/au.162523153.36542496/v1 · Cited by 1
“…pre- exposure (i.e. non- consumptive) interactions between predators and prey can alter prey movement and space use behaviour (Brown et al., 1988; Creel et al., 2014; Jones & Dornhaus, 2011; Spieler, 2003) in ways that predictably increase or decrease parasite transmission (Duffy et al., 2019;…”
BackgroundIranzo, E., Wittmer, H. U., Traba, J., Acebes, P., Mata, C., & Malo, J. (2020) · doi:10.26686/wgtn.12510083.v1 · Cited by 1
Fear Of Predators Compromises Parental Care And Juvenile Survival In A Songbird
Dudeck, P. B. (2015) · Scholarship@Western (Western University)
Risky business: dealing with risk in a predator - prey community
Dröge, E. (2017) · Montana State University ScholarWorks (Montana State University)
Harris, N. C., & Mills, K. L. (2020) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2020.06.09.142604
“For example, prey might not alter spatial 177 patterns, but instead increase group sizes and vigilance behavior as antipredator responses to 178 African lions [35].”
BackgroundThe predator-dependent replicator dynamics
Braga, I., & Wardil, L. L. (2021) · Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical · doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ac40e4
“On the other hand, because team defence is usually much better than dispersing and trying to escape, the game that is likely to be played in interactions against predators is the stag-hunt game [27, 28].”
Social anxiety: how competition, sex, and dispersal affect our propensity to interact sociallyPreprint
Faria, G. S., Bell, V., & Raihani, N. (2021) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/78gyx
Shorrocks, B. (2016) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118587430.refs
Mramba, R. P. (2022) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09386
“many eyes hypothesis) or increased need of time for foraging following competition with group members (Dalerum et al., 2008; Creel et al., 2014).”
BackgroundInfluentialIranzo, E., Wittmer, H. U., Traba, J., Acebes, P., Mata, C., & Malo, J. (2020) · doi:10.26686/wgtn.12510083
(2015) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-801983-2.00010-3
Allee effect driven by predation: A study of Gause type predator-prey modelPreprint
Sasmal, S. K., Pal, S., Pal, N., & Takeuchi, Y. (2022) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1912943/v1
Social information use in herbivore prey can influence the success of biological control
Tóth, Z. (2023) · Biological Control · doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2023.105339
Weterings, M. J. A., Ebbinge, E. Y. C., Strijker, B. N., Spek, G. J., & Kuipers, H. (2023) · doi:10.22541/au.169755368.80054091/v1
Dwyer, J., Weinberg, M., Dickinson, S. Y., & Bergan, J. F. (2023) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2023.11.28.569126
“The presence of a predator, similarly, promotes grouping behaviors and decreases feeding in mammals, while hunger suppresses social interactions in support of food seeking (Creel et al., 2014; St-Cyr et al., 2018; Padilla et al., 2016).”
BackgroundDo predators keep prey healthy or make them sicker? A meta-analysisPreprint
Richards, R. L., Drake, J. M., & Ezenwa, V. O. (2024) · doi:10.22541/au.170665053.39960740/v1
Seasonal Dynamics of Group Size and Composition in Wild Red Deer Across Ecological GradientsPreprint
Gort‐Esteve, A., Riera, J. L., Marco, J., & Ruiz‐Olmo, J. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4807961
Ahmad, K., Nigam, P., & Suhail, I. (2024) · Preprints.org · doi:10.20944/preprints202408.0241.v1
Forbes, R. E., Smit, L.-A., & Kerley, G. I. H. (2024) · acta ethologica · doi:10.1007/s10211-024-00448-6
“The use of anti-predator behaviours differs spatiotemporally due to the costs of anti-predator behaviours and the spatio - temporal variation in predation risk (Creel et al. 2008 , 2014 ).”
Antipredator behaviour in semi-feral horses: innate response and the influence of external factors
Bercy, A., Ceacero, F., & Komárková, M. (2025) · Animal Cognition · doi:10.1007/s10071-025-01933-6
“Such behaviour is in accordance with other studies on group dynamics, where it is interpreted as a strategy for group defense (Creel et al. 2014; Janczarek et al. 2020a).”
Blank, D. A. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-83504-9_16
Group Size and Social Composition
Blank, D. A. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-83504-9_11
Brook, R. K., Harris, K. E., Clark, D. A., Lochansky, C., & Colpitts, J. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.04.11.648486
Interspecies Haptic Sociality: An Observation of Grooming Between Two Mongoose Species
Smith, K., Hepplewhite, M., San, E. D. L., & Somers, M. J. (2025) · Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1002/ece3.71659
“…on to improve predation avoidance through social group augmentation and its complementary advantages of cooperative vigilance; an adaptive social strategy built from a reactive response for a proactive approach where benefits likely outweigh costs of close association (Creel et al. 2014).”
Wang, Q., Yang, B., Chang, J., Wang, X., Chen, X., Li, S., Renzeng, J., Gongqiu, D., & Li, Z. (2025) · Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1002/ece3.71646
Colchen, T., Pays, O., Harmange, C., Morin, J., Moreau, E., Bonnet, M., & Pagano, A. (2025) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2025.123255
“…changes in foraging behaviour (Altendorf et al., 2001; Verdolin, 2006), habitat use (Bland & Temple, 1990; Werner et al., 1983), vigilance (Creel et al., 2014; Pays et al., 2021), activity patterns (Crawford et al., 2020; Ross et al., 2013) and aggregation (Dittmann & Schausberger, 2017;…”
Lü, M., Pan, Q., Shi, S., & Xiang, C. (2025) · Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.jmaa.2025.129998
Metadata
- Authors
- Creel, S., Schuette, P., & Christianson, D.
- Affiliations
- Montana State University (US)
- University of Arizona (US)
- Venue
- Behavioral Ecology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2014-04-06
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 773-784
- ISSN
- 1045-2249 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-7279
- OpenAlex
- W2106228428
- Semantic Scholar
- 5549597fcba6c62940491abffdc7ea645c812f77
- 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