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
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- 1991, 29, 445
- 2010, WYOMING WILDL, 11, 2
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Non‐consumptive predator effects on prey population size: A dearth of evidence
Sheriff, M. J., Peacor, S. D., Hawlena, D., & Thaker, M. (2020) · Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2656.13213 · Cited by 181
“For example, in African ungulates, Creel, Schuette, and Christianson (2014) found that predator-induced increases in vigilance most often did not cause a reduction in foraging (but see Creel et al., 2017).”
BackgroundPalmer, M. S., Fieberg, J., Swanson, A., Kosmala, M., & Packer, C. (2017) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/ele.12832 · Cited by 181
Dynamics of a predator-prey system with fear and group defense
Sasmal, S. K., & Takeuchi, Y. (2019) · Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.jmaa.2019.123471 · Cited by 164
Designing studies of predation risk for improved inference in carnivore-ungulate systems
Prugh, L. R., Sivy, K. J., Mahoney, P. J., Ganz, T. R., Ditmer, M. A., van de Kerk, M., Gilbert, S. L., & Montgomery, R. A. (2019) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2019.02.011 · Cited by 153
“…presence of a predator provides only limited statistical power and weak mechanistic associations with risk responses by prey, with the notable exception of beforeafter-control-impact studies evaluating pre- and post-predator recovery/removal (e.g., Lagos et al., 1995; Christianson and Creel, 2014).”
BackgroundSay‐Sallaz, E., Chamaillé‐Jammes, S., Fritz, H., & Valeix, M. (2019) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2019.03.044 · Cited by 132
“Another well-studied aspect of anti-predator behaviour is how individuals modify their social dynamics when faced with increased predation risk (Fig. 4, 23 publications; e.g. Lima, 1995; Roberts, 1996; Creel and Winnie, 2005; Creel et al., 2014).”
BackgroundInfluential
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
