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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Brown, J. S., Laundre, J. W., Gurung, M.·1999·Journal of Mammalogy
DOI 10.2307/1383287
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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…

Overview

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.

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1,347

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Brown, J. S., Laundre, J. W., & Gurung, M.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Chicago (US)
Venue
Journal of Mammalogy
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
1999-05-20
Volume
80
Issue
2
Pages
385-399
ISSN
  • 0022-2372 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-1542
DOI
10.2307/1383287
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
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Applied Mathematics › 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