Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 188

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Predation Risk and Fasting Capacity: Do Wintering Birds Maintain Optimal Body Mass?

Rogers, Christopher M.·1987·Ecology

Abstract

This paper tests the optimal body mass (OBM) model developed by Lima (1986) for small birds overwintering in a temperate climate. The OBM model views winter body mass as reflecting a trade—off between predation risk and the risk of starvation during periods of inclement weather. Specifically, stochastic computer simulations of winter seasons showed that costs (e.g., risk of being preyed upon) and benefits (e.g., fasting capacity) of fat associated with an intermediate mass combine to maximize the probability of overwinter survivorship (Lima 1986). The OBM model predicts that when benefits but not costs of extensive fattening are eliminated by predictable resources, the optimal solution will be for bird species to avoid costs by remaining leaner than species utilizing unpredictable resources. In the latter environment, benefits of fattening are important to surviving suddenly imposed fasting spells. Thus if mass and therefore winter survivorship are optimized among environments, size of the fat reserve should vary inversely with resource predictability. As a test of this prediction, this study compares visible subcutaneous fat among three avian foraging guilds that occupy a gradient of winter resource predictability. Strictly tree—foraging species utilizing tree—borne resources were considered to occupy a predictable environment relative to strictly ground—foraging species. In the latter foraging guild, resources may be unexpectedly and temporarily eliminated by moderate to heavy snowfall. Species with a partial dependence on each of these resource environments were assumed to occupy a resource environment of intermediate predictability. In four separate data sets involving small birds from southern Michigan, central Tennessee, northern Michigan, and southern Indiana, visible fat class varied inversely with resource predictability, as predicted. This trend was also observed in a comparison of species assumed alike in physiological factors that may independently influence size of fat reserve (body size, hypothermia, thermal conductance, basal metabolic rate, nocturnal roost microenvironment). In further concordance with theory, a comparison of dawn fat class between the Dark—eyed Junco and Tree Sparrow (from an unpredictable resource environment) and the Downy Woodpecker and Tufted Titmouse (from a predictable resource environment), which factored out all but a slight effect of basal metabolic rate, indicated significantly greater reserves in the two ground—foraging species. I conclude that aside from possible influences of physiological factors, resource predictability likely affects winter body mass in small birds. This influence takes the form of guild—specific trade—offs between predation risk and fasting capacity (see also Stuebe and Ketterson 1982, Nolan and Ketterson 1983). These results support the OBM model (and similar models), and along with previous studies suggest the widespread importance of predation risk as a factor structuring biological systems.

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 · 10.2307/1938377

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Metadata

Authors
Rogers, C. M.
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1987-08
Volume
68
Issue
4
Pages
1051-1061
ISSN
  • 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-9170
OpenAlex
W2148423843
Cited by
188
References
2
FWCI
5.55
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: Predation Risk and Fasting Capacity: Do Wintering Birds Maintain Optimal Body Mass? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1938377
The paper
Rogers, C. M. (1987). Predation Risk and Fasting Capacity: Do Wintering Birds Maintain Optimal Body Mass? Ecology. https://doi.org/10.2307/1938377

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.