1961
DOI: 10.2307/1932247
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Energy Values of Ecological Materials

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

9
129
1
9

Year Published

1980
1980
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 363 publications
(148 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
9
129
1
9
Order By: Relevance
“…This was not done in this study. However, using the value of 0.89 found by Avery (1971) for L. vivipara (similar values have been reported for other insectivorous lizards (Pough 1973;Bennett and Dawson 1976)), and assuming an energy content of insects of 23.0 J (mg dry weight) -1 (Golley 1961), reasonable estimates can be made. This yields values of 0.20, 0.01, 0.19 and 0.28 kJ day -1 for autumn, winter, spring and summer respectively: The values for the three active seasons are not significantly different from the predicted value (t-tests; autumn: t=1.43, spring: t-1.55, summer: t=0.47; df=13, P>0.05); but the value for the nonactive winter lizards is significantly lower (t= 3.69, df=13, 0.002 < P < 0.005).…”
Section: Comparison With Alternative Techniquessupporting
confidence: 72%
“…This was not done in this study. However, using the value of 0.89 found by Avery (1971) for L. vivipara (similar values have been reported for other insectivorous lizards (Pough 1973;Bennett and Dawson 1976)), and assuming an energy content of insects of 23.0 J (mg dry weight) -1 (Golley 1961), reasonable estimates can be made. This yields values of 0.20, 0.01, 0.19 and 0.28 kJ day -1 for autumn, winter, spring and summer respectively: The values for the three active seasons are not significantly different from the predicted value (t-tests; autumn: t=1.43, spring: t-1.55, summer: t=0.47; df=13, P>0.05); but the value for the nonactive winter lizards is significantly lower (t= 3.69, df=13, 0.002 < P < 0.005).…”
Section: Comparison With Alternative Techniquessupporting
confidence: 72%
“…Currently, the 'energy assimilation hypothesis' best explains fruit consumption by migrating passerines, with an energetic advantage and more rapid increase in body mass thanks to omnivory rather than strict insectivory, though a large quantity of fruits needs to be consumed (Parrish 1997, Eggers 2000, Berthold 2001, Bairlein 2003, Newton 2008. Some fruit species frequently consumed by migrating flycatchers in Iberia, such as Dogwood in the present study, have a high energy content, only slightly lower than that of insects (c. 5 kcal g À1 dry pulp for Dogwood as previously indicated, in comparison with 5.2-6.8 kcal g À1 dry weight for insects, according to Golley 1961, Avery 1971, Jordano 1981. Fruits are obtained more easily than insects because they are an immobile and predictable food source, concentrated in space and conspicuous.…”
Section: Concluding Remarks: Migrating Flycatchers Fruits and Consersupporting
confidence: 64%
“…Even though the energy content of the different kinds of insects and microcrustaceans was not investigated, these results suggest that insects must be superior in relation to microcrustaceans; otherwise, the costs involved in the detection, capture, manipulation, digestion and assimilation of microcrustaceans, especially copepods, could be higher. Golley (1961) evaluated the energetic content of different animal groups and obtained a measure of 4419 g.cal.g -1 dry weight for Daphnia and 5363 g.cal.g -1 dry weight for an insect species. Given this, the tendency of a superior energy balance between microcrustaceans and insects becomes more explicit when, in addition to the drop in nutritional condition with insectivorous to planktivorous changes (April-May), a slight recovery in condition was observed when insects became more relevant in the diet at the end of the study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%