Paper detail

Group Size Effect on the Success of Wolves Hunting

Social foraging shows unexpected features such as the existence of a group size threshold to accomplish a successful hunt. Above this threshold, additional individuals do not increase the probability of capturing the prey. Recent direct observations of wolves in Yellowstone Park show that the group size threshold when hunting its most formidable prey, bison, is nearly three times greater than when hunting elk, a prey that is considerably less challenging to capture than bison. These observations provide empirical support to a computational particle model of group hunting which was previously shown to be effective in explaining why hunting success peaks at apparently small pack sizes when hunting elk. The model is based on considering two critical distances between wolves and prey: the minimal safe distance at which wolves stand from the prey, and the avoidance distance at which wolves move away from each other when they approach the prey. The minimal safe distance is longer when the prey is more dangerous to hunt. We show that the model explains effectively that the group size threshold is greater when the minimal safe distance is longer. Although both distances are longer when the prey is more dangerous, they contribute oppositely to the value of the group size threshold: the group size threshold is smaller when the avoidance distance is longer. This unexpected mechanism gives rise to a global increase of the group size threshold when considering bison with respect to elk, but other prey more dangerous than elk can lead to specific critical distances that can give rise to the same group size threshold. Our results show that the computational model can guide further research on group size effects, suggesting that more experimental observations should be obtained for other kind of prey as e.g. moose.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.