1990
DOI: 10.2307/1564238
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Prey Selection in the Oklahoma Salamander (Eurycea tynerensis)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2000
2000
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
3
1
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, we noted few negative interactions between salamanders and crayfish and no increased incidence of missing tails in the presence of crayfish (e.g., Tumlison et al, 1990). In a single instance, we observed a crayfish actively feeding on a salamander held in its cheliped.…”
Section: Potential Predatorsmentioning
confidence: 60%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Moreover, we noted few negative interactions between salamanders and crayfish and no increased incidence of missing tails in the presence of crayfish (e.g., Tumlison et al, 1990). In a single instance, we observed a crayfish actively feeding on a salamander held in its cheliped.…”
Section: Potential Predatorsmentioning
confidence: 60%
“…Additionally, we found that embeddedness of rock substrates did not affect salamander density, likely due to the loose nature of the interstitial particles. Tumlison et al (1990) noted that Eurycea tynerensis densities were highest at sites where embeddedness was near 50% of rock bottom surface, and he hypothesized that the small particles provided spaces for foraging and cover.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The association of the San Marcos salamander with cobble substrates across both of the major habitat areas within the critical habitat (i.e. the lake and the river sections) is similar to habitat associations reported for other species of Eurycea (Tumlison et al ., ; Bowles et al ., ). Rock and gravel substrates serve as spatial refuges for small‐bodied salamanders from potential predators such as fish (Barr and Babbitt, ) and crayfish (Tumlison et al ., ; Bowles et al ., ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Only paedomorphic individuals in the western Ozark Plateau were considered to be E. tynerensis, while metamorphic individuals were considered to be part of a more widespread species, E. multiplicata (specifically the Ozark subspecies E. m. griseogaster). Consequently, conservation attention focused only on the paedomorphic populations Tumlison 1997, 2001;Tumlison et al 1990b;Tumlison and Cline 2003), which were given special conservation status (Near Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List and a Species of Special Concern by the states of Arkansas and Oklahoma ;Bonett 2005;IUCN 2008;ODWC 2009). However, recent phylogenetic analyses showed a well supported clade which includes E. tynerensis (paedomorphic individuals) and E. m. griseogaster (metamorphic individuals); yet neither taxon is itself monophyletic, and many adjacent populations of metamorphic and paedomorphic individuals are genetically identical based on mitochondrial DNA (Bonett and Chippindale 2004).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%