The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Surplus killing by carnivores
Abstract
In several field observations, foxes, Spotted hyaenas and other carnivores killed many more prey individuals than they could eat. Functional and causal aspects of this phenomenon are discussed and the conclusion is reached that these surplus kills are the consequence of behavioural compromises in both predator and prey to meet opposing environmental requirements. Summary: (1) Observations are reported in which carnivores killed considerably more prey animals than they could possibly eat, and causal and functional aspects of this behaviour are discussed. The species concerned were especially foxes and Spotted hyaenas, and references are quoted about surplus killing by other Canidae, Felidae and Ursidae. (2) It is argued that satiation in carnivores does not inhibit further catching and killing, but it probably does inhibit searching and hunting. Thus carnivores are able to procure an “easy prey” but normally satiation limits numbers killed. (3) Many, if not all, carnivores possess behaviour patterns which allow utilization of a kill at a later time, or allow other members of the same social unit or offspring to use the food. (4) Several prey species showed a lack of anti‐predator reaction under particular climatological circumstances; it is argued that this lack of response usually has survival value. Sometimes anti‐predator behaviour is accidentally made ineffective. (5) Surplus kills are made possible by (2) and (4) above, and only very rare circumstances give a predator access to so many prey that (3) is ineffective. It is suggested that surplus kills are the consequence of behavioural compromises in both predator and prey to meet opposing environmental requirements.
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
KRUUK, H., & TURNER, M. (1967) · Mammalia · doi:10.1515/mamm.1967.31.1.1 · Cited by 306
Self-citation
Cited by
SAUNDERS, G. R., GENTLE, M. N., & DICKMAN, C. R. (2010) · Mammal Review · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2907.2010.00159.x · Cited by 262
A chronometric approach to the study of feeding behavior
Armstrong, S. (1980) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/0149-7634(80)90024-x · Cited by 184
Winter severity and wolf predation on a formerly wolf-free elk herd.
Mech, L. D., Smith, D. W., Murphy, K. M., & MacNulty, D. R. (2001) · The Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2307/3803048 · Cited by 161
Red Fox Vulpes vulpes (Linnaeus, 1758)
Soulsbury, C. D., & Statham, M. J. (2023) · Handbook of the Mammals of Europe · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-65038-8_119-1 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Kruuk, H.
- Venue
- Journal of Zoology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1972-02
- Volume
- 166
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 233-244
- ISSN
- 0952-8369 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-7998
- OpenAlex
- W1970162772
- Cited by
- 278
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 1.30
- 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: Surplus killing by carnivores. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1972.tb04087.x
- The paper
- Kruuk, H. (1972). Surplus killing by carnivores. Journal of Zoology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1972.tb04087.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.