The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Functional Response of Herbivores in Food‐Concentrated Patches: Tests of a Mechanistic Model
Abstract
Type II functional responses are frequently observed in herbivores feeding in patches where plants are concentrated in space. We tested a mechanistic model of regulation of intake rate of herbivores foraging in food—concentration patches (Laca and Demment 1992, Spalinger and Hobbs 1992) that accounts for asymptotic, Type II responses. The model is based on the hypothesis that competition between cropping and chewing regulates instataneous intake rate in response to changes in the size of bites obtained by the forager. We tested this hypothesis and examined the ability of our model to account for observations of intake rate of 12 species of mammalian herbivores ranging in body mass over 4 orders of magnitude. We measured short—term intake rates of mammalian herbivores feeding in hand—assembled patches of plants. We varied bite size by changing plant height and density in patches offered to herbivores, and observed dry matter intake rates in response to this variation. Averaged across species, our model accounted for 77% of the variance in food intake rate (P <.001 for all species). Predictions of maximum intake rate closely resembled observations of processing capacity, demonstrating that processing rather than cropping sets an upper limit on short—term intake. Tests of model mechanisms provided strong support for the hypothesis that competition between cropping and chewing is responsible for the Type II functional response seen in herbivores feeding in food—concentration patches. The model was able to consistently predict intake rates observed in 16 previous studies. These results indicate that plant characteristics regulating bite size (e.g., leaf size and geometry, spinescen) frequently control instantaneous rates of food intake by mammalian herbivores.
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
Cites
Fitting curves to data using nonlinear regression: a practical and nonmathematical review
Motulsky, H. J., & Ransnas, L. A. (1987) · The FASEB Journal · doi:10.1096/fasebj.1.5.3315805 · Cited by 1,327
Cited by
Food Web Complexity and Community Dynamics
Polis, G. A., & Strong, D. R. (1996) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/285880 · Cited by 2,109
Multiple Allee effects and population management
Berec, L., Angulo, E., & Courchamp, F. (2007) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.12.002 · Cited by 710
The allometry of patch selection in ruminants
Wilmshurst, J. F., Fryxell, J. M., & Bergman, C. M. (2000) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2000.1007 · Cited by 219
Hanley, T. A. (1997) · Oikos · doi:10.2307/3546006 · Cited by 186
Metadata
- Authors
- Gross, J. E., Shipley, L. A., Hobbs, N. T., Spalinger, D. E., & Wunder, B. A.
- Venue
- Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1993-04
- Volume
- 74
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 778-791
- ISSN
- 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-9170
- OpenAlex
- W2037960022
- Cited by
- 248
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 14.80
- 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: Functional Response of Herbivores in Food‐Concentrated Patches: Tests of a Mechanistic Model. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1940805
- The paper
- Gross, J. E., Shipley, L. A., Hobbs, N. T., Spalinger, D. E., & Wunder, B. A. (1993). Functional Response of Herbivores in Food‐Concentrated Patches: Tests of a Mechanistic Model. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.2307/1940805
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.