The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
General results concerning the trade-off between gaining energy and avoiding predation
Abstract
When animals can choose from a range of feeding options, often those options with a higher energetic gain carry a higher risk of predation. This paper analyses the optimal trade-off between food and predation. We are primarily interested in how an animal’s decisions and its state change over time. Our models are very general. They can be applied to growth decisions, such as choice of habitat, in which case we might consider how the state variable size changes over an animal’s lifetime. Equally our models are applicable to short-term foraging decisions, such as vigilance level, in which case we might consider how energy reserves vary over a day. We concentrate on two cases: (i) the animal must reach a fixed state, its fitness depending on when this is attained; (ii) the animal must survive to a fixed time, its fitness depending on its final state. In case (i) minimization of m ortality per unit increase of state is optimal under certain baseline conditions. In case (ii) behaviour is constant over time under baseline conditions (the 'Risk-spreading Theorem’). We analyse how these patterns are modified by complicating factors, e.g. time penalties, premature termination of the food supply, stochasticity in food supply or in metabolic expenditure, and state-dependence in the ability to obtain food, in metabolic expenditure and in predation risk. From this analysis we obtain a variety of possible explanations for why an animal should reduce its intake rate over time (i.e. show satiation). We show how earlier work can be viewed as special cases of our results.
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
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
Turner, A. M., & Mittelbach, G. G. (1990) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/1938636 · Cited by 352
Cited by
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
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
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
Nagelkerken, I., & Munday, P. L. (2016) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.13167 · Cited by 389
Multiscale wolf predation risk for elk: does migration reduce risk?
Hebblewhite, M., & Merrill, E. H. (2007) · Oecologia · doi:10.1007/s00442-007-0661-y · Cited by 238
Metadata
- Authors
- Houston, A. I., McNamara, J. M., & Hutchinson, J. M. C.
- Venue
- Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 1993-09-29
- Volume
- 341
- Issue
- 1298
- Pages
- 375-397
- ISSN
- 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-2970
- OpenAlex
- W2142791239
- Cited by
- 652
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 12.95
- 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: General results concerning the trade-off between gaining energy and avoiding predation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rstb.1993.0123
- The paper
- Houston, A. I., McNamara, J. M., & Hutchinson, J. M. C. (1993). General results concerning the trade-off between gaining energy and avoiding predation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1993.0123
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.