Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,079

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ecological Consequences of Foraging Mode

Huey, Raymound B., Pianka, Eric R.·1981·Ecology

Abstract

Desert lizards are typically either widely foraging or sit—and—wait predators, and these foraging modes are correlated with major differences in ecology. Foraging mode is related to the type of prey eaten by lizards. Widely foraging lizards in the Kalahari desert, the Western Australian desert, and the North American desert generally eat more prey that are sedentary, unpredictably distributed, and clumped (e.g., termites) or that are large and inaccessible (inactive scorpions) than do sit—and—wait lizards. In contrast, sit—and—wait lizards eat more prey that are active. Foraging mode also appears to influence the types of predators that in turn eat the lizards. For example, a sit—and—wait snake eats predominately widely foraging lizards. Crossovers in foraging mode thus exist between trophic levels. Widely foraging lizards may also encounter predators more frequently, as suggested by analyses of relative tail lengths; but tail break frequencies are ambiguous. Daily maintenance energetic expenditures of widely foraging lizards appear to be about 1.3—1.5 times greater than those of sit—and—wait lizards in the same habitats, but gross food gains are about 1.3—2.1 times greater. Widely foraging species also have lower relative clutch volumes, apparently in response to enhanced risks of predation. Foraging mode within one species varies with changes in food availability. Physiology, morphology, and risk of predation might generally restrict the flexibility of foraging mode. Because foraging mode constrains numerous important aspects of ecology, any general model of foraging velocity must be complex.

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 · 10.2307/1936998

Cites

14 of 14 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

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

Show all 14 references

Cited by

See all 1,079

Metadata

Authors
Huey, R. B., & Pianka, E. R.
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1981-08
Volume
62
Issue
4
Pages
991-999
ISSN
  • 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-9170
OpenAlex
W2052590786
Cited by
1,079
References
14
FWCI
17.30
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: Ecological Consequences of Foraging Mode. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1936998
The paper
Huey, R. B., & Pianka, E. R. (1981). Ecological Consequences of Foraging Mode. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.2307/1936998

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.