CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 374Wildlife Ecology and ConservationAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesEvolution and Paleontology Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Predator–prey size relationships in an African large-mammal food web

Open access
Owen‐Smith, Norman, Mills, M. G. L.·2008·Journal of Animal Ecology
DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2007.01314.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

1. Size relationships are central in structuring trophic linkages within food webs, leading to suggestions that the dietary niche of smaller carnivores is nested within that of larger species. However, past analyses have not taken into account the differing selection shown by carnivores for specific size ranges of prey, nor the extent to which the greater carcass mass of larger prey outweighs the greater numerical representation of smaller prey species in the predator diet. Furthermore, the top-down impact that predation has on prey abundance cannot be assessed simply in terms of the number of predator species involved. 2. Records of found carcasses and cause of death assembled over 46 years in the Kruger National Park, South Africa, corrected for under-recording of smaller species, enabled a definitive assessment of size relationships between large mammalian carnivores and their ungulate prey. Five carnivore species were considered, including lion (Panthera leo), leopard (Panthera pardus), cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), African wild dog (Lycaon pictus) and spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta), and 22 herbivore prey species larger than 10 kg in adult body mass. 3. These carnivores selectively favoured prey species approximately half to twice their mass, within a total prey size range from an order of magnitude below to an order of magnitude above the body mass of the predator. The three smallest carnivores, i.e. leopard, cheetah and wild dog, showed high similarity in prey species favoured. Despite overlap in prey size range, each carnivore showed a distinct dietary preference. 4. Almost all mortality was through the agency of a predator for ungulate species up to the size of a giraffe (800-1200 kg). Ungulates larger than twice the mass of the predator contributed substantially to the dietary intake of lions, despite the low proportional mortality inflicted by predation on these species. Only for megaherbivores substantially exceeding 1000 kg in adult body mass did predation become a negligible cause of mortality. 5. Hence, the relative size of predators and prey had a pervasive structuring influence on biomass fluxes within this large-mammal food web. Nevertheless, the large carnivore assemblage was dominated overwhelmingly by the largest predator, which contributed the major share of animals killed across a wide size range.

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.1365-2656.2007.01314.x

Cites

53 of 53 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

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?

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

Show all 52 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Elton C.S., 1927, Animal Ecology
  2. Mills M.G.L., 2003, The Kruger Experience: Ecology and Management of Savanna Heterogeneity, 370
  3. Owen‐Smith N., 2003, The Kruger Experience: Ecology and Management of Savanna Heterogeneity, 310
  4. Pianka E.R., 1981, Theoretical Ecology, 167
  5. Schaller G.B., 1972, The Serengeti Lion
  6. Smuts G.L., 1979, Diet of lions and spotted hyenas assessed from stomach contents, South African Journal of Wildlife Research, 9, 20

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–372 of 372

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Owen‐Smith, N., & Mills, M. G. L.
Affiliations
  • University of the Witwatersrand (ZA)
  • University of Pretoria (ZA)
Corresponding author
Owen‐Smith, Norman
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Animal Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-10-26
Volume
77
Issue
1
Pages
173-183
ISSN
  • 0021-8790 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2656
DOI
10.1111/j.1365-2656.2007.01314.x
OpenAlex
W2014229261
Cited by
374
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 24
FWCI
10.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Journal of Animal Ecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UpSpace Institutional Repository (University of Pretoria) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
Keywords
predator-prey size relationship, large carnivores, ungulate prey, carnivore diet, prey selection, causes of death, lion, leopard, cheetah, Lycaon pictus, spotted hyena, top-down control, food web structure, Kruger National Park
MeSH terms
Animals, Body Weight, Carnivora, Feeding Behavior, Female, Male, Perissodactyla, Population Dynamics, Predatory Behavior, South Africa, Ecosystem, Biomass, Food Chain, Body Size

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