Relationship of Vertebrate Prey Size to Transport Mode and Distance in the Northern Shrike

Probst, Remo; Wegleitner, Stefan; Schmid, Rudolf

doi:10.1676/02-097

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, large passerines such as shrikes (Lanius spp.) are able to carry prey up to 80% of their own weight, or even in excess of it, to feeding perches without any sign of exhaustion (Yosef 1993, Probst et al 2003. Interestingly, shrikes also transport the prey with the bill and only transfer them to feet when prey represent from 35% to 60% of their own weight (see Yosef 1993, Probst et al 2003 for details), far above the relative weight of stones carried by Black Wheatears (c. 18% of the bird's weight on average).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…are able to carry prey up to 80% of their own weight, or even in excess of it, to feeding perches without any sign of exhaustion (Yosef 1993, Probst et al 2003. Interestingly, shrikes also transport the prey with the bill and only transfer them to feet when prey represent from 35% to 60% of their own weight (see Yosef 1993, Probst et al 2003 for details), far above the relative weight of stones carried by Black Wheatears (c. 18% of the bird's weight on average). Therefore, I support the conclusion of Møller et al (1995) in that the effort made by male Black Wheatears during displays is undoubtedly high, but the claim that it is close to a physiological limit is more questionable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…are able to carry prey up to 80% of their own weight, or even in excess of it, to feeding perches without any sign of exhaustion (Yosef 1993, Probst et al . 2003). Interestingly, shrikes also transport the prey with the bill and only transfer them to feet when prey represent from 35% to 60% of their own weight (see Yosef 1993, Probst et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interestingly, shrikes also transport the prey with the bill and only transfer them to feet when prey represent from 35% to 60% of their own weight (see Yosef 1993, Probst et al . 2003 for details), far above the relative weight of stones carried by Black Wheatears ( c . 18% of the bird's weight on average).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Inferred costs and functional consequences of stone morphometry in the stone‐carrying displays of Black Wheatear (Oenanthe leucura)

Aznar

2022

Ibis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Post-mating courtship displays are often viewed as forms of sexual selection that allow individuals to assess fitness benefits from their mates based on honest signalling. However, display costs are not always easy to identify and quantify. Before each breeding attempt, male Black Wheatears Oenanthe leucura carry tens of heavy stones with the bill to form piles near the nest. The consequent increase of wing loading is considered the key display cost, and stone mass a key signal of male quality. However, males must also cope with neck and bill torques, and with outward-pushing forces that tend to slip stones out of the bill; these effects partly depend on stone morphometry. I evaluated the effects of stone morphometry by comparing stones from two territory types differing in density (thus volume for a given mass), i.e. abandoned houses (less dense) versus rock outcrops (more dense). The comparison included samples of available stones to collect (ground), and stones actually collected by the birds (display). Regardless of territory type, display stones were significantly thinner, and generated higher estimated torques but lower outwardpushing forces, than ground stones of the same mass. On average, display stones were also thicker in abandoned houses than in rock outcrops, but their mass was also significantly lower, which resulted in transport costs being similar between territory types. This suggests that males randomly select the stones that they can handle within the limits of local availability and, in abandoned houses, they have more difficulties in handling the heaviest transportable stones because many of these have too great a volume. This study calls for further experimental research on male performance and the cues that females use to assess the display. A broader conceptual framework is also necessary to address the behavioural and morphological consequences of carrying rigid objects with the bill.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Inferred costs and functional consequences of stone morphometry in the stone‐carrying displays of Black Wheatear (Oenanthe leucura)

Aznar

2022

Ibis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such aspects may influence predator-prey interactions across a wide phylogenetic array of systems, and provide fertile opportunities for comparative analysis (Krause et al 2003;Probst et al 2003;Aljetlawi et al 2004;Radloff and Du Toit 2004). Squamate reptiles are a particularly interesting group in this respect because of the central importance of prey size as a dimension of the ecological niche, with independent evolution of cranial kinesis (to accommodate large prey) in some lizard lineages as well as in snakes (e.g., Herrel et al 1999aHerrel et al , 2000Patchell and Shine 1986a).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do lizards and snakes really differ in their ability to take large prey? A study of relative prey mass and feeding tactics in lizards

Shine

Thomas

2005

Oecologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adaptations of snakes to overpower and ingest relatively large prey have attracted considerable research, whereas lizards generally are regarded as unable to subdue or ingest such large prey items. Our data challenge this assumption. On morphological grounds, most lizards lack the highly kinetic skulls that facilitate prey ingestion in macrostomate snakes, but (1) are capable of reducing large items into ingestible-sized pieces, and (2) have much larger heads relative to body length than do snakes. Thus, maximum ingestible prey size might be as high in some lizards as in snakes. Also, the willingness of lizards to tackle very large prey items may have been underestimated. Captive hatchling scincid lizards (Bassiana duperreyi) offered crickets of a range of relative prey masses (RPMs) attacked (and sometimes consumed parts of) crickets as large as or larger than their own body mass. RPM affected foraging responses: larger crickets were less likely to be attacked (especially on the abdomen), more likely to be avoided, and less likely to provide significant nutritional benefit to the predator. Nonetheless, lizards successfully attacked and consumed most crickets < or =35% of the predator's own body mass, representing RPM as high as for most prey taken by snakes. Thus, although lizards lack the impressive cranial kinesis or prey-subduction adaptations of snakes, at least some lizards are capable of overpowering and ingesting prey items as large as those consumed by snakes of similar body sizes.

show abstract

Temporal changes and sexual differences of impaling behavior in Southern Grey Shrike (Lanius meridionalis)

Keynan

Yosef

2010

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Relationship of Vertebrate Prey Size to Transport Mode and Distance in the Northern Shrike

Cited by 4 publications

References 10 publications

Inferred costs and functional consequences of stone morphometry in the stone‐carrying displays of Black Wheatear (Oenanthe leucura)

Inferred costs and functional consequences of stone morphometry in the stone‐carrying displays of Black Wheatear (Oenanthe leucura)

Do lizards and snakes really differ in their ability to take large prey? A study of relative prey mass and feeding tactics in lizards

Temporal changes and sexual differences of impaling behavior in Southern Grey Shrike (Lanius meridionalis)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About