Faced with a choice, sparrowhawks more often attack the more vulnerable prey group

102 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Spatial decomposition of predation risk using resource selection functions: an example in a wolf /elk predator /prey system (2005, background): “Examples include where encounters between predators and prey can be observed directly (Fanshawe and Fitzgibbon 1993, Cresswell and Quinn 2004), or where they can be estimated indirectly, for example, via snow tracking (Hebblewhite and Pletscher 2002).”
Determining the fitness consequences of antipredation behavior (2005, background): “For example, determining whether sparrowhawks attack the least vigilant of two mounts that vary in the state of alert (they do not—see Cresswell et al., 2003) or the smaller of two flocks (they do—see Cresswell and Quinn, 2004) suggests that choice of flock is more important than relative vigilance…”
Responses of elk herd size to fine-scale spatial and temporal variation in the risk of predation by wolves (2005, unknown): “…Metapeira incrassate: Uetz & Hieber 1994; lions, Panthera leo, preying on mixed ungulate herds: Scheel 1993; cichlids, Aequidens pulcher, preying on guppies, Poecilia reticulate: Krause & Godin 1995; sparrowhawks, Accipiter nicus, preying on redshanks, Tringa tetanus: Cresswell & Quinn 2004).”
Habitat heterogeneity and mammalian predator–prey interactions (2012, background): “Direct observation of encounters and field observations of hunting behaviour (Fanshaw & Fitzgibbon 1993, Cresswell & Quinn 2004) can also provide information on all stages of predation.”