APPREHENSION AND TIME ALLOCATION IN GERBILS: THE EFFECTS OF PREDATORY RISK AND ENERGETIC STATE

By Burt P. Kotler, Joel s. Brown, Amos Bouskila. 2004

168 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Genetics, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0a0a6d71ce6cf7a9430db63f32b26ac2e9c58196

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. Aaron J. Wirsing
2. Michael R. Heithaus
3. Lawrence M. Dill
4. W. Cresswell
5. Johan Lind
6. J. Verdolin
7. A. Frid
8. David W. Macdonald

In Genetics

1. W. Cresswell
2. Johan Lind
3. Burt P. Kotler
4. A. Frid
5. Joel s. Brown
6. Lawrence M. Dill
7. Z. Davidson
8. Andrew J. Loveridge

In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

1. Johan Lind
2. W. Cresswell
3. Burt P. Kotler
4. Joel s. Brown

Citations in the corpus

• Tradeoffs between food abundance and predation danger in spatial usage of a stopover site by western sandpipers, Calidris mauri (2006, background): “GUDs offer an effective measure of the cost to an animal foraging under the danger of predation (Brown 1988, Altendorf et al. 2001, Kotler et al. 2004).”
• Does the risk of encountering lions influence African herbivore behaviour at waterholes? (2009, background): “Kotler et al. 2004; Fenn and Macdonald 1995; Roth and Lima 2007).”
• Hazardous duty pay and the foraging cost of predation (2004, background): “They also show heightened apprehension when their energetic state has been augmented ( Kotler et al. 2004 ).”
• Tests of Theory for Diel Variation in Salmonid Feeding Activity and Habitat Use (2005, background): “While we focus here on stream salmonids, SPHAST should also be equally useful in modeling the activity and habitat selection of other animals with variable diel patterns of behavior (e.g., deer, Kilgo et al. 1998; rodents, Kotler et al. 2004).”
• Patch use, apprehension, and vigilance behavior of Nubian Ibex under perceived risk of predation (2006, background): “For instance, the concept of antipredatory apprehension to study how predation risk affects foraging decisions has only been applied to gerbils, animals that cannot use vigilance (e.g., Dall et al. 2001; Kotler et al. 2002; Kotler et al. 2004).”
• The Value of Animal Behavior in Evaluations of Restoration Success (2008, background): “Increases in predation risk and associated anti-predation behavior can lead to decreases in foraging efficiency (e.g., Metcalfe et al. 1999; Kotler et al. 2004; Orpwood et al. 2006).”
• Determining the fitness consequences of antipredation behavior (2005, methodology): “This methodology is successful because it combines several important aspects of antipredation behavior (Brown, 1999), for example, time allocation and vigilance (Kotler et al., 2004).”
• Meta-analysis of foraging and predation risk trade-offs in terrestrial systems (2006, background): “To gain a more complete understanding, additional experiments that manipulate the state of the forager and predation risk (but see Kotler 1997; Kotler et al. 2004) and account for confounding variables such as handling times, food selection, and seasonal effects are needed.”
• Seascapes of fear: evaluating sublethal predator effects experienced and generated by marine mammals (2008, background): “Because consumers deplete patch resources over time, GUDs provide a measure of the time devoted to particular patches by foragers (e.g., a high GUD signifies a relatively brief foraging bout and vice versa; Kotler et al. 2004).”