2000
DOI: 10.1006/jtbi.1999.1048
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Prey Processing in Central Place Foragers

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…They provided significantly more plucked and decapitated prey to their nestlings. By completely removing these indigestible food parts, parents provide chicks with food items that are more energy efficient to digest, and that potentially reduce the risk of ectoparasite exposure to chicks [35]. This behavior may also reduce the chances of attracting predators to the nest by avoiding a buildup of prey remains around the nest area [35].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They provided significantly more plucked and decapitated prey to their nestlings. By completely removing these indigestible food parts, parents provide chicks with food items that are more energy efficient to digest, and that potentially reduce the risk of ectoparasite exposure to chicks [35]. This behavior may also reduce the chances of attracting predators to the nest by avoiding a buildup of prey remains around the nest area [35].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Using a similar framework, Lafferty (1992) adopted an economic approach to determine the conditions under which predators should consume infected prey. This may be extended to explore, for instance, the evolution of prey processing, where the handling time component occurs mainly for the predator to remove parasites from the prey (Stephens and Krebs 1986, Ydenberg 1998, Rands et al 2000. Such foraging decisions by the predator will then affect the evolution of parasite and intermediate host strategies, requiring a game-theoretic approach.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After a forager acquires prey it must decide how much energy (or time) is partitioned to processing and transporting that resource. By processing prey at the point of acquisition, the forager reduces the costs of transporting an item, enhances resource digestibility, and reduces the bulk of the item to facilitate consumption or carrying (see Kaspari, 1990;Rands et al, 2000). Cumulatively, applications of the CPF models show that at greater distances from central places, organisms become more selective by transporting loads/prey that are larger-sized (Cuthill and Kacelnik, 1990;Fryxell andDoucet, 1991, Jackson, 2001;Stephens and Krebs, 1986, pp.…”
Section: Central Place Foraging Models and The Zooarchaeological Recordmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…CPF models consider how the costs of transporting a resource influences resource choice, load size, distances between foraging patches, and the placement of central places. Recent modifications of classic CPF models highlight how prey preparation, by removing low value and indigestible parts (Kaspari, 1991) or concentrating the nutritional content of the prey by crushing low value parts (Sherry and McDade, 1982), can influence the transport costs and decisions of central place foragers (Cuthill and Kacelnik, 1990;Kaspari, 1990;Rands et al, 2000;Sodhi, 1992;Ydenberg, 1998). After a forager acquires prey it must decide how much energy (or time) is partitioned to processing and transporting that resource.…”
Section: Central Place Foraging Models and The Zooarchaeological Recordmentioning
confidence: 98%