Cited by 32Wildlife Ecology and ConservationRangeland and Wildlife ManagementAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 81 of the 82 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Spatial heterogeneity in the strength of plant-herbivore interactions under predation risk: the tale of bison foraging in Wolf Country.

Open access
Harvey, Léa, Fortin, Daniel·2013·PLoS ONE

Abstract

Spatial heterogeneity in the strength of trophic interactions is a fundamental property of food web spatial dynamics. The feeding effort of herbivores should reflect adaptive decisions that only become rewarding when foraging gains exceed 1) the metabolic costs, 2) the missed opportunity costs of not foraging elsewhere, and 3) the foraging costs of anti-predator behaviour. Two aspects of these costs remain largely unexplored: the link between the strength of plant-herbivore interactions and the spatial scale of food-quality assessment, and the predator-prey spatial game. We modeled the foraging effort of free-ranging plains bison (Bison bison bison) in winter, within a mosaic of discrete meadows. Spatial patterns of bison herbivory were largely driven by a search for high net energy gains and, to a lesser degree, by the spatial game with grey wolves (Canis lupus). Bison decreased local feeding effort with increasing metabolic and missed opportunity costs. Bison herbivory was most consistent with a broad-scale assessment of food patch quality, i.e., bison grazed more intensively in patches with a low missed opportunity cost relative to other patches available in the landscape. Bison and wolves had a higher probability of using the same meadows than expected randomly. This co-occurrence indicates wolves are ahead in the spatial game they play with bison. Wolves influenced bison foraging at fine scale, as bison tended to consume less biomass at each feeding station when in meadows where the risk of a wolf's arrival was relatively high. Also, bison left more high-quality vegetation in large than small meadows. This behavior does not maximize their energy intake rate, but is consistent with bison playing a shell game with wolves. Our assessment of bison foraging in a natural setting clarifies the complex nature of plant-herbivore interactions under predation risk, and reveals how spatial patterns in herbivory emerge from multi-scale landscape heterogeneity.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0073324

Cites

81 of 81 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

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 247 p.
  2. KR Searle, 2007, It's the “foodscape”, Isr J Ecol Evol, 53, 297
  3. Sih A (1987) Predators and prey lifestyles: an evolutionary and ecological overview. In: Kerfoot WC, Sih A, editors. Predation: direct and indirect impacts on aquatic communities. Hanover, N. H.: University Press of New England. pp. 203–224.
  4. BP Kotler, 2002, Foraging games between gerbils and their predators: temporal dynamics of resource depletion and apprehension in gerbils, Evol Ecol Res, 4, 495
  5. Vonesh EF, Chinchilli VM (1997) Linear and nonlinear models for analysis of repeated measurements. In: Dekker M, editor. New York. pp. 419–424.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 32

Metadata

Authors
Harvey, L., & Fortin, D.
Affiliations
Université Laval (CA)
Corresponding author
Fortin, Daniel
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2013-09-11
Volume
8
Issue
9
Pages
e73324
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1983233034
Cited by
31
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
FWCI
2.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Parks Canada
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Keywords
plant-herbivore interactions, predation risk, Bison bison bison, grey wolf, wolf, metabolic cost, foraging effort, spatial heterogeneity, winter grazing, landscape heterogeneity
MeSH terms
Animals, Feeding Behavior, Models, Biological, Predatory Behavior, Bison, Ecosystem, Plant Physiological Phenomena, Biomass, Wolves, Food Chain, Herbivory

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