Cited by 1,347Wildlife Ecology and ConservationMathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology ModelsAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies

The Ecology of Fear: Optimal Foraging, Game Theory, and Trophic Interactions

Brown, J. S., Laundre, J. W., Gurung, M.·1999·Journal of Mammalogy

Abstract

Mammalian predator-prey systems are behaviorally sophisticated games of stealth and fear. But, traditional mass-action models of predator prey dynamics treat individuals as behaviorally unresponsive “molecules” in Brownian motion. Foraging theory should provide the conceptual framework to envision the interaction. But, current models of predator feeding behavior generally envision a clever predator consuming large numbers of sessile and behaviorally inert prey (e.g., kangaroo rats, Dipodomys, collecting seeds from food patches). Here, we extend foraging theory to consider a predator-prey game of stealth and fear and then embed this game into the modeling of predator-prey population dynamics. The melding of the prey and predator's optimal behaviors with their population and community-level consequences constitutes the ecology of fear. The ecology of fear identifies the endpoints of a continuum of N-driven (population size) versus μ-driven (fear) systems. In N-driven systems, the major direct dynamical feedback involves predators killing prey, whereas μ-driven systems involve the indirect effects from changes in fear levels and prey catchability. In μ-driven systems, prey respond to predators by becoming more vigilant or by moving away from suspected predators. In this way, a predator (e.g., mountain lion, Puma concolor) depletes a food patch (e.g., local herd of mule deer, Odocoileus hemionus) by frightening prey rather than by actually killing prey. Behavior buffers the syste…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/1383287

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • When wolves were present in the upper Gallatin Basin, their effects on elk were primarily direct predation and behavioral mediation of herbivory patterns.

    “When wolves were present in the upper Gallatin Basin, their effects upon elk were primarily twofold: (1) they could affect elk populations through direct predation and (2) they could behaviorally mediate patterns of herbivory (Brown et al., 1999;Ripple and Beschta, 2004a).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brown, J. S., Laundre, J. W., & Gurung, M.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Chicago (US)
Venue
Journal of Mammalogy
Published
1999-05-20
Volume
80
Issue
2
Pages
385-399
ISSN
  • 0022-2372 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-1542
OpenAlex
W2005745339
Cited by
1,347
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 76 · 2025: 116 · 2024: 95 · 2023: 80 · 2022: 110 · 2021: 79 · 2020: 71 · 2019: 76 · 2018: 73 · 2017: 55 · 2016: 55 · 2015: 47 · 2014: 59 · 2013: 56 · 2012: 38
FWCI
12.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Mammalogy (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Mathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology Models
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Keywords
ecology of fear, predator-prey interactions, optimal foraging theory, game theory, trophic interactions, predator-prey population dynamics, predator-prey coevolution

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