A Proposed Ethogram of Large-Carnivore Predatory Behavior, Exemplified by the Wolf
Abstract
Although predatory behavior is traditionally described by a basic ethogram composed of 3 phases (search, pursue, and capture), behavioral studies of large terrestrial carnivores generally use the concept of a “hunt” to classify and measure foraging. This approach is problematic because there is no consensus on what behaviors constitute a hunt. We therefore examined how the basic ethogram could be used as a common framework for classifying large-carnivore behavior. We used >2,150 h of observed wolf (Canis lupus) behavior in Yellowstone National Park, including 517 and 134 encounters with elk (Cervus elaphus) and American bison (Bison bison), respectively, to demonstrate the functional importance of several frequently described, but rarely quantified, patterns of large-carnivore behavior not explicitly described by the basic ethogram (approaching, watching, and attacking groups). To account for these additionally important behaviors we propose a modified form of the basic ethogram (search, approach, watch, attack-group, attack-individual, and capture). We tested the applicability of this ethogram by comparing it to 31 previous classifications and descriptions involving 7 other species and 5 other wolf populations. Close correspondence among studies suggests that this ethogram may provide a generally useful scheme for classifying large-carnivore predatory behavior that is behaviorally less ambiguous than the concept of a hunt.
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
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.
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?
Open habitats with few visual barriers may enhance wolves' ability to identify vulnerable individuals within an elk group.
“With few visual barriers, open habitats could also enhance the wolvesÕ ability to sort through an elk group and scan its members for vulnerable individuals to attack (Mech et al. 1998;MacNulty et al. 2007)”
From Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator–prey system (2007) · cites this paper as MacNulty et al. 2007
The Discussion (page unavailable) says wolves likely assess prey vulnerability and that attacking a group is their primary method of selecting an individual. It does not say that open habitat or fewer visual barriers improves their ability to assess elk group members. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
On Optimal Use of a Patchy Environment
MacArthur, R. H., & Pianka, E. R. (1966) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/282454 · Cited by 4,593 · see citing works
Winter prey selection and estimation of wolf kill rates in Yellowstone National Park, 1995–2000
SMITH, D. W., DRUMMER, T. D., MURPHY, K. M., GUERNSEY, D. S., & EVANS, S. B. (2004) · Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2193/0022-541x(2004)068[0153:wpsaeo]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 191 · see citing works
Self-citationForaging dynamics of lions in a semi-arid environment
Stander, P. E. (1992) · Canadian Journal of Zoology · doi:10.1139/z92-002 · Cited by 143 · cited 4× · see citing works
“Authors have complained about this term since its 1st application to large carnivores because its definition is too subjective (Caro 1994; Creel and Creel 1995, 2002; Kruuk 1972; Mills 1990; Schaller 1972; Scheel and Packer 1991; Stander 1992; Stander and Albon 1993).”
BackgroundInfluential
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 38
- ALTMANN, S. A. 1965. Sociobiology of rhesus monkeys. II: Stochastics of social communication. Journal of Theoretical Biology 8:490-522.
- ANIMAL CARE AND USE COMMITTEE. 1998. Guidelines for the capture, handling, and care of mammals as approved by the American Society of Mammalogists. Journal of Mammalogy 79:1416-1431.
- BANGS, E. E., AND S. H. FRITTS. 1996. Reintroducing the gray wolf to central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:402-413.
- BEKOFF, M. 1979. Behavioral acts: description, classification, etho- gram analysis, and measurement. Pp. 67-80 in The analysis of social interactions: methods, issues, and illustrations (R. B. Cairns, ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey.
- CARBYN, L. N., AND T. TROTTIER. 1987. Responses of bison on their calving grounds to predation by wolves in Wood Buffalo National Park. Canadian Journal of Zoology 65:2072-2078.
- CARO, T. M. 1994. Cheetahs of the Serengeti Plains: group living in an asocial species. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
- CARO, T. M., AND C. D. FITZGIBBON. 1992. Large carnivores and their prey: the quick and the dead. Pp. 117-142 in Natural enemies: the population biology of predators, parasites and diseases (M. J. Crawley, ed.). Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, United Kingdom.
- CLARK, K. R. F. 1971. Food habitats and behavior of the tundra wolf on central Baffin island. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
- COOPER, S. M. 1990. The hunting behavior of spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta) in a region containing both sedentary and migratory populations of herbivores. African Journal of Ecology 28:131- 141.
- CREEL, S., AND N. M. CREEL. 2002. The African wild dog: behavior, ecology, and conservation. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
- EATON, R. L. 1970b. Hunting behavior of cheetah. Journal of Wildlife Management 34:56-67.
- ELIOT, J. P., I. M. COWAN, AND C. S. HOLLING. 1977. Prey capture by the African lion. Canadian Journal of Zoology 55:1811-1828.
- ENDLER, J. A. 1986. Defense against predators. Pp. 109-134 in Predator-prey relationships: perspectives and approaches from the study of lower vertebrates (M. E. Feder and G. V. Lauder, eds.). University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
- ESTES, R. D., AND J. GODDARD. 1967. Prey selection and hunting behavior of the African wild dog. Journal of Wildlife Management 31:52-70.
- FENTRESS, J. C. 1990. The categorization of behavior. Pp. 7-34 in Interpretation and explanation in the study of animal behavior. Vol. I. Interpretation, intentionality, and communication (M. Bekoff and D. Jamieson, eds.). Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
- FULLER, T. K., AND P. W. KAT. 1993. Hunting success of African wild dogs in southwestern Kenya. Journal of Mammalogy 74:464- 467.
- FUNSTON, P. J., M. G. L. MILLS, AND H. C. BIGGS. 2001. Factors affecting the hunting success of male and female lions in the Kruger National Park. Journal of Zoology (London) 253:419-431.
- GASAWAY, W. C., K. T. MOSSESTAD, AND P. E. STANDER. 1991. Food acquisition by spotted hyenas in Etosha National Park, Namibia: predation versus scavenging. African Journal of Ecology 29:64-75.
- GITTLEMAN, J. L. 1989. Carnivore group living: comparative trends. Pp. 183-207 in Carnivore behavior, ecology, and evolution (J. L. Gittleman, ed.). Cornell University Press, New York.
- HACCOU, P., AND E. MELLIS. 1992. Statistical analysis of behavioral data: an approach based on time-structured models. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.
- HEGLUND, N. C., AND C. R. TAYLOR. 1988. Speed, stride frequency and energy cost per stride: how do they change with body size and gait? Journal of Experimental Biology 138:301-318.
- HINDE, R. A. 1970. Animal behavior: a synthesis of ethology and comparative psychology. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
- HOLEKAMP, K. E., L. SMALE, AND S. M. COOPER. 1997. Hunting rates and hunting success in the spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta). Journal of Zoology (London) 242:1-15.
- KRUUK, H. 1972. The spotted hyena. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
- LEHNER, P. N. 1996. Handbook of ethological methods. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
- LINGLE, S. 2000. Seasonal variation in coyote feeding behavior and mortality of white-tailed deer and mule deer. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:85-99.
- MARTIN, P., AND P. BATESON. 1993. Measuring behavior: an introductory guide. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
- MECH, L. D. 1970. The wolf: the ecology and behavior of an endangered species. Doubleday/Natural History Press, New York.
- MECH, L. D. 1975. Hunting behavior in two similar species of social canids. Pp. 363-368 in The wild canids: their systematics, behavioral ecology and evolution (M. W. Fox, ed.).
- MECH, L. D., AND R. O. PETERSON. 2003. Wolf-prey relations. Pp. 131-157 in Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation (L. D. Mech and L. Boitani, ed.). University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
- MECH, L. D., D. W. SMITH, K. M. MURPHY, AND D. R. MACNULTY. 2001. Winter severity and wolf predation on a formerly wolf- free elk group. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:998- 1003.
- MILLS, M. G. L., AND T. M. SHENK. 1992. Predator-prey relationships: the impact of lion predation on wildebeest and zebra populations. Journal of Animal Ecology 61:693-702.
- REICH, A. 1981. The behavior and ecology of the African wild dog (Lycaon pictus) in the Kruger National Park. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
- SCHALLER, G. B. 1967. The deer and the tiger. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
- SCHALLER, G. B. 1972. The Serengeti lion: a study of predator-prey relations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
- SMITH, D. W., ET AL. 2000. Wolf-bison interactions in Yellowstone National Park. Journal of Mammalogy 81:1128-1135.
- STEPHENS, D. W., AND J. R. KREBS. 1986. Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
- VAN ORSDOL, K. G. 1984. Foraging behavior and hunting success of lions in Queen Elizabeth National Park, Uganda. African Journal of Ecology 22:79-99. Submitted 12 April 2006. Accepted 11 October 2006.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator–prey system
Kauffman, M. J., Varley, N., Smith, D. W., Stahler, D. R., MacNulty, D. R., & Boyce, M. S. (2007) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01059.x · Cited by 350 · see citing works
Self-citationKauffman, M. J., Brodie, J. F., & Jules, E. S. (2010) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/09-1949.1 · Cited by 275 · see citing works
- Authors
- MacNulty, D. R., Mech, L. D., & Smith, D. W.
- Affiliations
- University of Minnesota (US)
- Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center (US)
- Yellowstone National Park (US)
- Corresponding author
- MacNulty, Daniel R.
- Venue
- Journal of Mammalogy
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2007-06
- Volume
- 88
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 595-605
- ISSN
- 0022-2372 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-1542
- OpenAlex
- W2158344125
- Cited by
- 156
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 5.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Mammalogy (publishedVersion)
- Lincoln (University of Nebraska) (submittedVersion)
- Digital Commons - USU (Utah State University) (submittedVersion)
- BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Geographic Society
- University of Minnesota
- U.S. Geological Survey
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
- Keywords
- wolf, predatory behavior, ethogram, large carnivores, hunting behavior, elk, American bison, Yellowstone National Park, behavior classification, foraging behavior
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