Optimal diet theory: when does it work, and when and why does it fail?
By Andrew Sih, B. Christensen. 2001
558 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Ecology, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Nature and Landscape Conservation
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7ea057d5832706b5487501c48421bb555f19f6f5
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 Nature and Landscape Conservation
Citations in the corpus
- Predator-prey naïveté, antipredator behavior, and the ecology of predator invasions (2010, background): “Recent reviews suggest that the relative impacts of predators on diff erent prey species is more aff ected by variations in prey behavior rather than by the predator’s diet selection (Sih and Christensen 2001).”
- Prey selection by the common dolphin: Fulfilling high energy requirements with high quality food (2010, background): “Today, three 49 major robust and fundamental predictions are commonly assumed (Stephens and Krebs, 1986; 50 Sih and Christensen, 2001): (1) predators should prefer prey that yield more energy compared 51 to foraging costs, (2) as abundance of higher profitable prey species increases in the 52…”
- A Proposed Ethogram of Large-Carnivore Predatory Behavior, Exemplified by the Wolf (2007, background): “…for examining aspects of predator and prey behavior that are sensitive to different phases of the predation process, such as predator diet (Creel and Creel 2002; Sih and Christensen 2001), predator ontogeny (Fox 1969; Leyhausen 1965), and prey defense (Endler 1986; Lingle and Pellis 2002).”
- Discrimination abilities for nutrients: which difference matters for choosy birds and why? (2003, background): “ODT predicts that foragers prefer energetically profitable prey items at the attack stage (Sih & Christensen 2001), while nutrient regulation considers the multiple nutritional requirements of consumers, assuming that those food items are chosen that represent the direct link between the consumers’…”
- Does diet in Celtic Sea fishes reflect prey availability (2003, unknown): “The existence of these apparent size thresholds might be seen as supporting one of the predictions of Optimal Foraging Theory (OFT), that ‘foraging should obey a quantitaive threshold rule for when specific prey should be included or excluded from the diet’ ( Sih & Christensen, 2001 ).”
- Food web structure and habitat loss (2002, background): “We assume that an omnivorous top species needs species from two trophic levels in each patch to minimize the foraging cost (Ball 1994; Sih & Christensen 2001).”
- Brown bears selectively kill salmon with higher energy content but only in habitats that facilitate choice (2004, background): “the frequency of prey types included in a diet differs from their relative frequency in the environment ( Sih and Christensen 2001 ).”
- Digestive bottleneck affects foraging decisions in red knots Calidris canutus. I. Prey choice (2005, result): “On the contrary, many tests of the CM have been performed in a wide range of foragers (see reviews by Stephens & Krebs 1986; Maurer 1996; Sih & Christensen 2001).”
- The Broad Spectrum Revolution at 40: Resource diversity, intensification, and an alternative to optimal foraging explanations (2012, methodology): “In an examination of 134 applications of Optimal Diet Theory (another name for diet breadth models) to non-human foragers, Sih and Cristensen (2001) found that while the ODT model did a reasonably good job in predicting the behavior of forgers feeding on immobile prey, it preformed poorly in…”