1. Marcus, M.A., Burnham, T.C., Stephens, D.W., & Dunlap, A.S. in press. Experimental evolution of color preference for oviposition in Drosophila melanogaster. Journal of Bioeconomics.
  2. Dunlap A.S., Papaj D.R., & Dornhaus A. 2017. Sampling and tracking a changing environment: persistence and reward in the foraging decisions of bumblebees. Interface Focus 7: 20160149.
  3. Stephens, D.W. and Dunlap, A.S. 2017. Foraging. In: Learning and Memory: A Comprehensive Reference, ed. 2. Byrne, J. Menzel, R. et al (Eds.), Oxford: Elsevier.
  4. Dunlap, A.S. & Stephens, D.W. 2016. Reliability, uncertainty, and costs in the evolution of animal learning. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 12:73-79.
  5. Dunlap, A.S., Nielsen, M.E. Dornhaus, A., & Papaj, D.R. 2016. Foraging bumble bees weigh the reliability of personal and social information. Current Biology 26: 1195-1199.
  6. Burnham, T.C, Dunlap, A.S., & Stephens, D.W. 2015. Experimental evolution and economics. Sage OPEN Oct-Dec: 1-17.
  7. Dunlap, A.S. & Stephens, D.W. 2014. Experimental evolution of prepared learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(32):11750-11755.
  8. Dunlap, A.S. & Stephens, D.W. 2012. Tracking a changing environment: optimal sampling, adaptive memory, and overnight effects. Behavioral Processes 89:86-94.
  9. Stephens, D. W. & Dunlap, A.S. 2011. Patch exploitation as choice: Symmetric choice in an asymmetric situation? Animal Behaviour 81:683-689.
  10. Dunlap, A.S., MacCormick, H., McLinn, C.M., Scott, M. and Kerr, B. 2009. Why some memories do not last a lifetime: optimal long-term recall in changing environments. Behavioral Ecology 20:1096-1105.
  11. Dunlap, A.S. & Stephens, D.W. 2009. Components of change in the evolution of learning and non-learning. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 276: 3201-3208.
  12. Stephens, D.W. & Dunlap, A.S. 2009. Why do animals make better choices in patch-leaving problems? Behavioral Processes 80:252-260.
  13. Stephens, D.W. and Dunlap, A.S. 2008. Foraging. In: Learning and Memory: A Comprehensive Reference. Byrne, J. Menzel, R. et al (Eds.), Oxford: Elsevier Ltd. pp 365-383.
  14. Henly, S., Ostdiek, A., Blackwell, E., Knutie, S., Dunlap, A.S., and Stephens, D.W. 2008. The discounting-by-interruptions hypothesis: model and experiment. Behavioral Ecology 19:154-162.
  15. Dunlap, A.S., Chen, B., Bednekoff, P., Greene, T., and Balda, R.P. 2006. A state dependent sex difference in spatial memory in pinyon jays (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus): mated females forget as predicted by natural history. Animal Behaviour 72: 401-411.
  16. Mech, S.G., Dunlap, A.S., and Wolff, J.O. 2003. Female prairie voles do not choose males based on their frequency of scent marking. Behavioral Processes 61: 101-108.
  17. Wolff, J.O., Mech, S.G., Dunlap, A.S., and Hodges, K.E. 2002. Multi-male mating by paired and unpaired female prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). Behaviour 139: 1147-1160.
  18. Wolff, J.O. and Dunlap, A.S. 2002. Multiple male mating, probability of conception, and litter size in the prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster). Behavioral Processes 58: 105-110.
  19. Wolff, J.O., Dunlap, A.S., and Ritchart, E. 2001. Female prairie voles and meadow voles do not suppress reproduction in their daughters. Behavioral Processes 55: 157-162.