Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 229

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Foraging costs of vigilance in large mammalian herbivores

Fortin, Daniel, Boyce, Mark S., Merrill, Evelyn H., Fryxell, John M.·2004·Oikos

Abstract

Vigilance has been assumed to reduce food intake by taking away time from food processing. Such foraging costs of vigilance have been predicted to have profound effects on the structure of communities. Recently, however, it has been argued that mammalian herbivores might be capable of maintaining their rate of food intake despite being vigilant, because of their ability to scan the environment while chewing vegetation. We conducted behavioral observations to evaluate whether vigilance decreases the bite rate of free‐ranging female bison ( Bison bison ) in Prince Albert National Park and elk ( Cervus canadensis ) in Yellowstone National Park. Modeling of foraging processes indicated that chewing time exceeded the time that bison and elk spent searching for food, interacting with conspecifics, and scanning. Consequently, bison and elk might have been capable of maintaining their rate of food intake despite vigilance. The maintenance of intake rate would have required bison and elk to match scanning events closely with chewing bouts, but we did not detect a positive correlation between the duration of scanning bouts and the number of consecutive bites taken just before vigilance events. As a result, vigilance was costly, and as it increased, bite rate declined for both herbivore species. Scanning still overlapped partially with food handling. Indeed, we estimated that 31% of feeding time being vigilant decreased bite rate by 20% for bison and 26% for elk, whereas total absence of overlap between chewing and scanning should have reduced bite rate by 31%. While we observed that vigilance induced foraging costs, these costs were less important than traditionally assumed.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.12976.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 229

Metadata

Authors
Fortin, D., Boyce, M. S., Merrill, E. H., & Fryxell, J. M.
Venue
Oikos
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-09-09
Volume
107
Issue
1
Pages
172-180
ISSN
  • 0030-1299 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0706
OpenAlex
W2076638078
Cited by
229
References
3
FWCI
4.17
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: Foraging costs of vigilance in large mammalian herbivores. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.12976.x
The paper
Fortin, D., Boyce, M. S., Merrill, E. H., & Fryxell, J. M. (2004). Foraging costs of vigilance in large mammalian herbivores. Oikos. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.12976.x

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.