The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Catch Me If You Can: Diel Activity Patterns of Mammalian Prey and Predators
Abstract
The activity patterns exhibited by animals are shaped by evolution, but additionally fine‐tuned by flexible responses to the environment. Predation risk and resource availability are environmental cues which influence the behavioural decisions that make both predators and prey engage in activity bursts, and depending on their local importance, can be strong enough to override the endogenous regulation of an animals’ circadian clock. In Southern Europe, wherever the European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) is abundant, it is the main prey of most mammalian mesopredators, and rodents are generally the alternative prey. We evaluated the bidirectional relation between the diel activity strategies of these mammalian mesopredators and prey coexisting in south‐western Europe. Results revealed that even though predation risk enforced by mammalian mesocarnivores during night‐time was approximately twice and five times higher than during twilight and daytime, respectively, murids consistently displayed unimodal nocturnal behaviour. Conversely, the European rabbits exhibited a bimodal pattern that peaked around sunrise and sunset. Despite the existence of some overlap between the diel rhythms of mesocarnivores and rabbits, their patterns were not synchronized. We suggest that the environmental stressors in our study areas are not severe enough to override the endogenous regulation of the circadian cycle in murids. European rabbits, however, are able to suppress their biological tendency for nocturnality by selecting a predominantly crepuscular pattern. In spite of the higher energetic input, mesocarnivores do not completely track rabbits’ activity pattern. They rather track rodents’ activity. We propose that these systems have probably evolved towards a situation where some degree of activity during high‐risk periods benefits the overall prey population survival, while the accessibility to sufficient prey prevents predators to completely track them.
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
Hutchinson, G. E. (1957) · Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology · doi:10.1101/sqb.1957.022.01.039 · Cited by 6,228
On Optimal Use of a Patchy Environment
MacArthur, R. H., & Pianka, E. R. (1966) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/282454 · Cited by 4,593
Schoener, T. W. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4145.27 · Cited by 4,129
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
Partitioning of time as an ecological resource
Kronfeld-Schor, N., & Dayan, T. (2003) · Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132435 · Cited by 1,021
Wolves and the Ecology of Fear: Can Predation Risk Structure Ecosystems?
RIPPLE, W. J., & BESCHTA, R. L. (2004) · BioScience · doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0755:wateof]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 813
Putting predators back into behavioral predator–prey interactions
Lima, S. L. (2002) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/s0169-5347(01)02393-x · Cited by 748
Cited by
Wang, Y., Allen, M. L., & Wilmers, C. C. (2015) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2015.05.007 · Cited by 320
Metadata
- Authors
- Monterroso, P., Alves, P. C., & Ferreras, P.
- Venue
- Ethology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-09-17
- Volume
- 119
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1044-1056
- ISSN
- 0179-1613 (ISSN-L)
- 1439-0310
- OpenAlex
- W2166588947
- Cited by
- 210
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 4.60
- 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
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.