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
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.
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
Trophic cascades among wolves, elk and aspen on Yellowstone National Park’s northern range
Ripple, W. J., Larsen, E. J., Renkin, R. A., & Smith, D. W. (2001) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/s0006-3207(01)00107-0 · Cited by 452
Childress, M. J., & Lung, M. A. (2003) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1006/anbe.2003.2217 · Cited by 304
Cited by
Creel, S., Schuette, P., & Christianson, D. (2014) · Behavioral Ecology · doi:10.1093/beheco/aru050 · Cited by 330
Diel predator activity drives a dynamic landscape of fear
Kohl, M. T., Stahler, D. R., Metz, M. C., Forester, J. D., Kauffman, M. J., Varley, N., White, P. J., Smith, D. W., & MacNulty, D. R. (2018) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.1002/ecm.1313 · Cited by 304
Time and space in general models of antipredator response: tests with wolves and elk
Creel, S., Winnie, J. A., Christianson, D., & Liley, S. (2008) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.07.006 · Cited by 194
Ripple, W. J., & Beschta, R. L. (2006) · Forest Ecology and Management · doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2006.04.023 · Cited by 148
Harvey, L., & Fortin, D. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0073324 · Cited by 31
Self-citation
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.