2011
DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2011.0965
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Does prey size matter? Novel observations of feeding in the leatherback turtle ( Dermochelys coriacea ) allow a test of predator–prey size relationships

Abstract: Optimal foraging models predict that large predators should concentrate on large prey in order to maximize their net gain of energy intake. Here, we show that the largest species of sea turtle, Dermochelys coriacea, does not strictly adhere to this general pattern. Field observations combined with a theoretical model suggest that a 300 kg leatherback turtle would meet its energetic requirements by feeding for 3-4 h a day on 4 g jellyfish, but only if prey were aggregated in high-density patches. Therefore, pre… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
24
0
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
2
24
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This is a rather low trophic position for a large marine mega-vertebrate, yet not surprising considering that leatherback turtles consume gelatinous prey [3], [32], [33]. In the eastern Pacific, leatherbacks forage largely on the sea nettle ( Chrysaora fuscescens ) [40, S. Benson, unpubl.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is a rather low trophic position for a large marine mega-vertebrate, yet not surprising considering that leatherback turtles consume gelatinous prey [3], [32], [33]. In the eastern Pacific, leatherbacks forage largely on the sea nettle ( Chrysaora fuscescens ) [40, S. Benson, unpubl.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A recent update on the optimal foraging theory suggests that imprint from past experience and hunger aversion can also make consumers prefer abundant resources to those rare ones even if the abundant resources are less profitable than the rare ones [25,26]. The component of adaptive interaction switch in the model reflects this updated optimal foraging process of both profit seeking and hunger aversion as the decision of a switch depends on both the benefit (b ji a ij v ij ) and the abundance (R j ) of exploited resources.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Consumers prefer to select highly profitable resources rather than consuming all resources available to them as specified in optimal foraging theory [24]. Concurrently, they will exploit abundant resources over rare ones to avoid risk [25,26]. This adaptive behaviour of interaction switching could well be the predominant process that pushes an ecological network towards becoming compartmentalized or nested, forming a potentially stable and resilient complex community [18,27].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…western Pacific) and life history stages (i.e. offshore; Fossette et al 2012, Heaslip et al 2012 Examining leatherback diets presents several challenges, as gelatinous zooplankton are understudied compared to other mid-trophic level taxa. This limitation can partially be attributed to the difficulties associated with the collection of fragile gelatinous taxa that are easily destroyed by common sampling techniques (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%