Predation risk, gender and the group size effect: does elk vigilance depend upon the behaviour of conspecifics?

By M. Childress, Mark Lung. 2003

323 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Small Animals

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3547a7345359e5be6f08681df3bb64f9fd90b790

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Small Animals

Citations in the corpus

The influence of conspecifics and predation risk on the vigilance of elk (Cervus elaphus) in Yellowstone National Park (2006, background): “Our results, and those of corroborating studies, suggest that female vigilance in Yellowstone National Park may indeed have an antipredatory benefit (Laundre et al. 2001; Childress and Lung 2003; Wolff and Van Horn 2003).”
Vigilance as a measure of fear in dairy cattle (2004, unknown): “As in other studies of vigilance in ungulates and other mammals (e.g., Underwood, 1982; Hunter and Skinner, 1998; Childress and Lung, 2003), the cows were considered to be more vigilant when their heads were raised than when their heads were lowered.”
Vigilance and Collective Detection of Predators in Degus (Octodon degus) (2006, background): “Although dilution and detection effects are difficult to tease apart (Childress & Lung 2003), the detection effect clearly predicts collective vigilance should increase with group size.”
VIGILANCE, PREDATION RISK, AND THE ALLEE EFFECT IN DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP (2004, background): “…risk as determined by body size, presence of young, habitat structure, distance from cover, group size, and position within a group (e.g., Kie 1999, Steenbeek1 E-mail: mikemooring@ptloma.edu et al. 1999, Altendorf et al. 2001, White et al. 2001, Childress and Lung 2003, Wolff and Van Horn 2003).”
What best explains vigilance in elk: characteristics of prey, predators, or the environment? (2008, background): “…many factors that influence scanning rates, including group size (Underwood 1982; Elgar 1989; Roberts 1996), age and sex (Hunter and Skinner 1998; Childress and Lung 2003; Winnie and Creel 2007), body condition (Winnie and Creel 2007), position within the group (Underwood 1982; Keys and Dugatkin…”
Spatiotemporal patterns of lion space use in a human-dominated landscape (2015, background): “We expect behavioural adjustment particularly among breeding female groups (prides; see Whitman, 2006), as they exhibit the strongest behavioural responses to predation risk in other species (e.g. Caro, 1987; Childress & Lung, 2003; Liley & Creel, 2007; Pangle & Holekamp, 2010a, 2010b).”
The Landscape of Fear: Ecological Implications of Being Afraid~!2009-09-09~!2009-11-16~!2010-02-02~! (2010, unknown): “Studies have demonstrated that the more fearful an animal is the more vigilant it should be (Quenette 1990, Hunter and Skinner 1998, Rushen 2000, Laundré et al. 2001, Childress and Lung 2003, Treves et al. 2003, Wolff and Van Horn 2003, Halofsky and Ripple 2008, just to list a few).”
Meta-analyses of whale-watching impact studies: Comparisons of cetacean responses to disturbance (2016, background): “…rate) and benefits from social living (cooperative defense, social cohesion, inter-generational transfer of knowledge) are likely to affect both the type of response and the way that repeated behavioral disruptions might influence population dynamics (Childress & Lung 2003, Wade et al. 2012).”
Relationships between direct predation and risk effects. (2008, background): “Predation risk effects are common and can be strong, but are rarely considered in conservation or wildlife management Predators affect prey demography through direct predation and through the costs of antipredator behavioral responses, or risk effects [1,2] (Figure 1). Responses to risk can be morph”