The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Predation Risk and Unpredictable Feeding Conditions: Determinants of Body Mass in Birds
Abstract
The body mass (or fat reserves) maintained by a wintering bird can be viewed as a trade—off between the risk of starvation and the risk of predation. This follows from the fact that fat reserves after survival in very different ways. From the starvation point of view, a bird should be as fat (or heavy) as possible in order to minimize its probability of starvation during weather—related food unavailability because fatter birds can survive longer without food than leaner birds. From the predation risk point of view, however, a bird should be as lean as possible to minimize its probability of being killed. Leaner birds will incur a smaller cost of existence than heavier birds and thus spend less time feeding, potentially exposed to predators. In addition, lean birds are likely to be more adept at escaping predators once attacked. If a bird is attempting to minimize its probability of death during the winter season, the fat reserves and thus the body mass it maintains will reflect a trade—off between starvation and predation risk. A simple stochastic simulation model developed to explore the nature of this trade—off indicates that body mass should: (1) increase with the frequency and/or harshness of periods of food unavailability (due to snow, ice, wind, etc.); (2) decreases with increasing predation risk; (3) decrease with increasing temperature; and (4) increase with food abundance. The analysis of the model readily explains why wintering birds maintain fat levels lower than those of which they are capable. The tendency for individuals of a given bird species to be heavier in more northerly populations and during midwinter is also readily interpreted in terms of the above trade—off. Implications for foraging behavior and population regulation in wintering birds are discussed.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
The physiology of life history trade-offs in animals
Zera, A. J., & Harshman, L. G. (2001) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.32.081501.114006 · Cited by 1,577
Optimal Bird Migration: The Relative Importance of Time, Energy, and Safety
Alerstam, T., & Lindström, Å. (1990) · Bird Migration · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-74542-3_22 · Cited by 1,288
The ecological costs of avian fat storage
Witter, M. S., & Cuthill, I. C. (1993) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.1993.0050 · Cited by 699
RISK AND FORAGING IN STOCHASTIC ENVIRONMENTS
Real, L., & Caraco, T. (1986) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.es.17.110186.002103 · Cited by 373
Seabirds as Indicators of Marine Food Supplies
Cairns, D. K. (1988) · Biological Oceanography · doi:10.1080/01965581.1987.10749517 · Cited by 372
Metadata
- Authors
- Lima, S. L.
- Venue
- Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1986-04
- Volume
- 67
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 377-385
- ISSN
- 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-9170
- OpenAlex
- W2078361618
- Cited by
- 693
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 38.80
- 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 Unpredictable Feeding Conditions: Determinants of Body Mass in Birds. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1938580
- The paper
- Lima, S. L. (1986). Predation Risk and Unpredictable Feeding Conditions: Determinants of Body Mass in Birds. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.2307/1938580
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.