Small is profitable: No support for the optimal foraging theory in sea stars Asterias rubens foraging on the blue edible mussel Mytilus edulis

Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science

Volumn 94, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 89-92

  Hummel, Christiaan ^a   Honkoop, Pieter ^b   van der Meer, Jaap ^a,b  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b ROYAL NETHERLANDS INSTITUTE FOR SEA RESEARCH   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Asterias; Cafeteria trial; Mussels; Mytilus; Predation; Sea stars; Size preference

Indexed keywords

BIVALVE; ECHINODERM; ENERGY EFFICIENCY; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FORAGING BEHAVIOR; FUNCTIONAL MORPHOLOGY; OPTIMIZATION; PREDATION; PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTION; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; SHELL; SIZE;

ASTERIAS; ASTERIAS RUBENS; ASTEROIDEA; MYTILUS; MYTILUS EDULIS;

EID: 79960599110     PISSN: 02727714     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecss.2011.05.028     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Anderson J.M. Studies of visceral regeneration in sea-stars. III. Regeneration of the cardiac stomach in Asterias forbesi (Desor). Biological Bulletin 1965, 129:454-470.
2. Elner R.W., Hughes R.N. Energy maximization in the diet of the shore crab, Carcinus maenas. Journal of Animal Ecology 1978, 47:103-116.
3. Emlen L.M. The role of time and energy in food preference. American. Naturalist 1966, 100:611-617.
4. Jangoux M. Food and feeding mechanisms: asteroidea. Echinoderm Nutrition 1982, 117-159. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam. M. Jangoux, J.M. Lawrence (Eds.).
5. Johnstone I., Norris K. Not all oystercatchers Haematopus ostralegus select the most profitable common cockles Cerastoderma edule: a difference between feeding methods. Ardea 2000, 88:137-153.
6. LaBarbera M. Analyzing body size as a factor in ecology and evolution. Annual. Review of Ecological Systems 1989, 20:97-117.
7. Lavoie M.E. How sea stars open bivalves. Biological Bulletin 1956, 111:114-122.
8. MacArthur R.H., Pianka E.R. On optimal use of a patchy environment. American Naturalist 1966, 100:603-609.
9. Norberg J., Tedengren M. Attack behaviour and predatory success of Asterias rubens L. related to differences in size and morphology of the prey mussel Mytilus edulis L. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 1995, 186:207-220.
10. Pyke G. Optimal foraging theory: a critical review. Annual Review of Ecological Systems 1984, 1:523-575.
11. Roa R. Design and analysis of multiple-choice feeding-preference experiments. Oecologia 1992, 89:509-515.
12. Schoener T.W. Theory of feeding strategies. Annual Review of Ecological Systems 1971, 2:369-404.
13. Smallegange I.M., van der Meer J. Why do shore crabs not prefer the most profitable mussels?. Journal of Animal Ecology 2003, 72:599-607.
14. Wong M.C., Barbeau M.A. Prey selection and the functional response of sea stars (Asterias vulgaris Verrill) and rock crabs (Cancer irroratus Say) preying on juvenile sea scallops (Placopecten magellanicus Gmelin) and blue mussels (Mytilus edulis Linnaeus). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 2005, 327:1-21.