Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,121

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 98 of the 98 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Hazardous duty pay and the foraging cost of predation

Brown, Joel S., Kotler, Burt P.·2004·Ecology Letters

Abstract

We review the concepts and research associated with measuring fear and its consequences for foraging. When foraging, animals should and do demand hazardous duty pay. They assess a foraging cost of predation to compensate for the risk of predation or the risk of catastrophic injury. Similarly, in weighing foraging options, animals tradeoff food and safety. The foraging cost of predation can be modelled, and it can be quantitatively and qualitatively measured using risk titrations. Giving‐up densities (GUDs) in depletable food patches and the distribution of foragers across safe and risky feeding opportunities are two frequent experimental tools for titrating food and safety. A growing body of literature shows that: (i) the cost of predation can be big and comprise the forager's largest foraging cost, (ii) seemingly small changes in habitat or microhabitat characteristics can lead to large changes in the cost of predation, and (iii) a forager's cost of predation rises with risk of mortality, the forager's energy state and a decrease in its marginal value of energy. In titrating for the cost of predation, researchers have investigated spatial and temporal variation in risk, scale‐dependent variation in risk, and the role of predation risk in a forager's ecology. A risk titration from a feeding animal often provides a more accurate behavioural indicator of predation risk than direct observations of predator‐inflicted mortality. Titrating for fear responses in foragers has some well‐established applications and holds promise for novel methodologies, concepts and applications. Future directions for expanding conceptual and empirical tools include: what are the consequences of foraging costs arising from interference behaviours and other sources of catastrophic loss? Are there alternative routes by which organisms can respond to tradeoffs of food and safety? What does an animal's landscape of fear look like as a spatially explicit map, and how do various environmental factors affect it? Behavioural titrations will help to illuminate these issues and more.

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.1461-0248.2004.00661.x

Cites

98 of 98 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

Cites

Show all 98 references

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. 10.1016/S0376-6357(02)00122-5 · doi:10.1016/s0376-6357(02)00122-5
  2. Bertram B.C.R., 1978, Behavioural Ecology, 64
  3. Brown J.S., 1998, Game Theory and Animal Behavior, 188, 10.1093/oso/9780195096927.003.0009 · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195096927.003.0009
  4. Brown J.S., 1992, Patch use under predation risk: II. A test with fox squirrels, Sciurus niger, Ann. Zoolog. Fenni., 29, 311
  5. Brown J.S., 1998, Patch use in the pygmy rock mouse (Petromyscus collinus), Mammalia, 62, 108
  6. 10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80776-6 · doi:10.1016/s0003-3472(05)80776-6
  7. 10.2307/3546222 · doi:10.2307/3546222
  8. Dall S.R.X., 2001, Attention, ‘apprehension’ and gerbils searching in patches, Ann. Zool. Fenni., 38, 15
  9. 10.1086/324124 · doi:10.1086/324124
  10. Guerrieri E., 1999, Induction and systemic release of herbivore_induced plant volatiles mediating in_flight orientation of Aphidius ervi, J. Chem. Ecol., 25, 1247, 10.1023/A:1020914506782 · doi:10.1023/a:1020914506782
  11. Gurung M.(2003).Ecology of fear: a case study of blue sheep and snow leopards in the Nepal Himalayas.PhD Dissertation University of Illinois Chicago IL.
  12. 10.2307/1382372 · doi:10.2307/1382372
  13. 10.2307/1369870 · doi:10.2307/1369870
  14. 10.2307/1380824 · doi:10.2307/1380824
  15. 10.2307/3566056 · doi:10.2307/3566056
  16. 10.2307/3565657 · doi:10.2307/3565657
  17. Linder Y.(1988).Seasonal differences in thermoregulation inGerbillus allenbyiandGerbillus pyramidumand their contribution to energy budgets.MSc thesis Ben‐Gurion University Beer Sheva Israel (in Hebrew with English abstract).
  18. 10.1016/S0003-3472(05)81023-1 · doi:10.1016/s0003-3472(05)81023-1
  19. 10.2307/1941473 · doi:10.2307/1941473
  20. 10.2307/2265737 · doi:10.2307/2265737
  21. Olsson O., 2001, Gain curves in depletable food patches: a test of five models with European starlings, Evol. Ecol. Res., 3, 285
  22. 10.1006/anbe.2001.1985 · doi:10.1006/anbe.2001.1985
  23. 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12657.x · doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12657.x
  24. 10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80670-0 · doi:10.1016/s0003-3472(05)80670-0
  25. 10.1016/0022-0981(93)90219-E · doi:10.1016/0022-0981(93)90219-e

Cited by

See all 1,121

Metadata

Authors
Brown, J. S., & Kotler, B. P.
Venue
Ecology Letters
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-09-15
Volume
7
Issue
10
Pages
999-1014
ISSN
  • 1461-023X (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-0248
OpenAlex
W2146706104
Cited by
1,121
References
98
FWCI
18.18
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: Hazardous duty pay and the foraging cost of predation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00661.x
The paper
Brown, J. S., & Kotler, B. P. (2004). Hazardous duty pay and the foraging cost of predation. Ecology Letters. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00661.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.