2013
DOI: 10.2110/palo.2012.p12-076r
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On the Measurement of Repair Frequency: How Important Is Data Standardization?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
26
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 88 publications
0
26
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Damage levels also differed: weakly ornamented individuals experienced shell damage likely to lead to the formation of a repair scar (assuming they managed to survive the attack) 58% of the time, whereas heavily ornamented individuals only sustained severe shell damage in 17% of attacks. The significant differences across morphologies in both mortality and shell damage highlight the importance of comparing similarly shaped shells when using repair scars as a proxy for selective pressure from predators (Dietl and Kosloski ). Despite differences in the likelihood of death or sustaining severe shell damage, the overall percentage of knobbed whelk individuals that were likely to form repair scars during our predation experiments was similar (21 vs 13% of weakly and heavily ornamented individuals, respectively; Table ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Damage levels also differed: weakly ornamented individuals experienced shell damage likely to lead to the formation of a repair scar (assuming they managed to survive the attack) 58% of the time, whereas heavily ornamented individuals only sustained severe shell damage in 17% of attacks. The significant differences across morphologies in both mortality and shell damage highlight the importance of comparing similarly shaped shells when using repair scars as a proxy for selective pressure from predators (Dietl and Kosloski ). Despite differences in the likelihood of death or sustaining severe shell damage, the overall percentage of knobbed whelk individuals that were likely to form repair scars during our predation experiments was similar (21 vs 13% of weakly and heavily ornamented individuals, respectively; Table ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are many possible complications with using repair scars (e.g. variable growth rates, and thus exposure time to enemies, and size and shape variation may bias estimated frequencies [Schoener , Alexander and Dietl , , Kowalewski , Dietl and Kosloski ]). However, if the individuals used for comparisons can be standardized for any morphological or exposure‐time variation that influences the accumulation of repair scars, the calculated repair frequency or rate represents a biologically meaningful index of selective pressure that captures variation in shell‐damaging attacks experienced by animals in the wild (Dietl and Kosloski ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although ‘size’ is a rather non‐specific quality, it can convey important information to the predator: larger individuals offer more edible tissue, but their shells are typically thicker and more difficult to break (Boulding ; Boulding & LaBarbera ). Larger shells are also probably older, and thus have had more time to accumulate repairs (Vermeij ; Dietl & Kosloski ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although repair scars can result from non-predatory breakage, scars resulting from crab predation are distinctive, and can be identified by the following criteria (Leighton, 2001;Kowalewski, 2002;Dietl & Kosloski, 2013;Stafford et al, in press): scar shape is non-random (e.g. We noted whether each specimen bore at least one repair scar or was free of scars, and repair frequency was calculated as the total number of specimens bearing at least one repair, divided by the total number of specimens, a widely used and conservative calculation (Kowalewski, 2002;Leighton, 2002;Alexander & Dietl, 2003;Dietl & Kosloski, 2013). chelae); scar is not concentric with growth lines; and/or matching scars observed on both sides of the shell (suggests that predator enclosed and attempted to crush prey).…”
Section: A T E R I a L S A N D M E T H O D Smentioning
confidence: 99%