ArticlePloS one2023
Estimating individual exposure to predation risk in group-living baboons, Papio anubis.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- No Evidence of Reactive Avoidance of Baboons (Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Climate and predation drive variation of diel activity patterns in chacma baboons (Papio ursinus) across Southern Africa.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- How to treat mixed behavior segments in supervised machine learning of behavioural modes from inertial measurement data.Movement ecology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In environments with multiple predators, vulnerabilities associated with the spatial positions of group-living prey are non-uniform and depend on the hunting styles of the predators. Theoretically, coursing predators follow their prey over long distances and attack open areas, exposing individuals at the edge of the group to predation risk more than those at the center (marginal predation). In contrast, ambush predators lurk unnoticed by their prey and appear randomly anywhere in the group; therefore, isolated individuals in the group would be more vulnerable to predators. These positions of vulnerability to predation are expected to be taken by larger-bodied males. Moreover, dominant males presumably occupy the center of the safe group. However, identifying individuals at higher predation risk requires both simultaneous recording of predator location and direct observation of predation events; empirical observations leave ambiguity as to who is at risk. Instead, several theoretical methods (predation risk proxies) have been proposed to assess predation risk: (1) the size of the individual 'unlimited domain of danger' based on Voronoi tessellation, (2) the size of the 'limited domain of danger' based on predator detection distance, (3) peripheral/center position in the group (minimum convex polygon), (4) the number and direction of others in the vicinity (surroundedness), and (5) dyadic distances. We explored the age-sex distribution of individuals in at-risk positions within a wild baboon group facing predation risk from leopards, lions, and hyenas, using Global Positioning System collars. Our analysis of the location data from 26 baboons revealed that adult males were consistently isolated at the edge of the group in all predation risk proxies. Empirical evidence from previous studies indicates that adult male baboons are the most frequently preyed upon, and our results highlights the importance of spatial positioning in this.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.