Geometric factors influencing the diet of vertebrate predators in marine and terrestrial environments

Ecology Letters

Volumn 17, Issue 12, 2014, Pages 1553-1559

  Carbone, Chris ^a   Codron, Daryl ^b,c   Scofield, Conrad ^a   Clauss, Marcus ^c   Bielby, Jon ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF ZOOLOGY   (United Kingdom)

^b NATIONAL MUSEUM   (South Africa)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Body size; Elasmobranchs; Energetics; Macroecology; Mammals; Marine predators; Predator prey relationships; Scaling; Snakes

Indexed keywords

BIOENERGETICS; BODY SIZE; DIET; ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION; ECTOTHERMY; ENDOTHERMY; FISH; FORAGING BEHAVIOR; GEOMETRY; HABITAT FRAGMENTATION; MACROECOLOGY; MAMMAL; MARINE ENVIRONMENT; MODEL TEST; MODEL VALIDATION; PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTION; SNAKE; SPECIALIST; TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT;

CHONDRICHTHYES; ELASMOBRANCHII; INVERTEBRATA; MAMMALIA; SERPENTES; VERTEBRATA;

ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BODY SIZE; DIET; ECOSYSTEM; PREDATION;

ANIMALS; BODY SIZE; DIET; ECOSYSTEM; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PREDATORY BEHAVIOR;

EID: 84939262062     PISSN: 1461023X     EISSN: 14610248     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/ele.12375     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Belgrano, A., Allen, A.P., Enquist, B.J. & Gillooly, J.F. (2002). Allometric scaling of maximum population density: a common rule for marine phytoplankton and terrestrial plants. Ecol. Lett., 5, 611-613.
2. Bennett, A.F. & Ruben, J.A. (1979). Endothermy and activity in vertebrates. Science, 206, 649-654.
3. Biewener, A.A. (1989). Scaling body support in mammals: limb posture and muscle mechanics. Science, 245, 45-48.
4. Bininda-Emonds, O.R.P., Cardillo, M., Jones, K.E., MacPhee, R.D.E., Beck, R.M.D., Grenyer, R. et al. (2007). The delayed rise of present-day mammals. Nature, 446, 507-512.
5. Blanchard, J.L., Jennings, S., Law, R., Castle, M.D., McCloghrie, P., Rochet, M.J. et al. (2009). How does abundance scale with body size in coupled size-structured food webs? J. Anim. Ecol., 78, 270-280.
6. Brose, U., Jonsson, T. & Berlow, E.L. (2006). Consumer-resource body-size relationships in natural food webs. Ecology, 87, 2411-2417.
7. Carbone, C., Mace, G.M., Roberts, S.C. & Macdonald, D.W. (1999). Energetic constraints on the diet of terrestrial carnivores. Nature, 402, 286-288.
8. Carbone, C., Cowlishaw, G., Isaac, N.J.B. & Rowcliffe, J.M. (2006). How far do animals go? Determinants of day range in mammals. Am. Nat., 165, 290-297.
9. Carbone, C., Rowcliffe, J.M., Cowlishaw, G. & Isaac, N.J. (2007a). The scaling of abundance in consumers and their resources: implications for the energy equivalence rule. Am. Nat., 170, 479-484.
10. Carbone, C., Teacher, A. & Rowcliffe, J.M. (2007b). The costs of carnivory. PLoS Biol., 5, e22.
11. Chan, K.Y.K., Jiang, H. & Padilla, D.K. (2013). Swimming speed of larval snail does not correlate with size and ciliary beat frequency. PLoS ONE, 8, e82764.
12. Clauss, M., Dittmann, M.T., Müller, D.H.W., Zerbe, P. & Codron, D. (2014). Low scaling of a life history variable: analysing eutherian gestation periods with and without phylogeny-informed statistics. Mamm. Biol., 79, 9-16.
13. Cohen, J.E. (1994). Marine and continental food webs: three paradoxes? Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B, 343, 57-69.
14. Cohen, J.E., Jonsson, T. & Carpenter, S.R. (2003). Ecological community description using the food web, species abundance, and body size. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci., 100, 1781-1786.
15. Cortés, E. (1999). Standardized diet compositions and trophic levels of sharks. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 56, 707-717.
16. Damuth, J.D. (1998). Population ecology: common rules for animals and plants. Nature, 395, 115-116.
17. Ernest, S.K., Enquist, B.J., Brown, J.H., Charnov, E.L., Gillooly, J.F., Savage, V.M. et al. (2003). Thermodynamic and metabolic effects on the scaling of production and population energy use. Ecol. Lett., 6, 990-995.
18. Estrada, J.A., Rice, A.N., Natanson, L.J. & Skomal, G.B. (2006). Use of isotopic analysis of vertebrae in reconstructing ontogenetic feeding ecology in white sharks. Ecology, 87, 829-834.
19. Feldman, A. & Meiri, S. (2013). Length-mass allometry in snakes. Biol. J. Linn. Soc., 108, 161-172.
20. Ford, J.K., Ellis, G.M., Barrett-Lennard, L.G., Morton, A.B., Palm, R.S. & Balcomb, K.C. (1998). Dietary specialization in two sympatric populations of killer whales (Orcinus orca) in coastal British Columbia and adjacent waters. Can. J. Zool., 76, 1456-1471.
21. Freckleton, R.P. (2009). The seven deadly sins of comparative analysis. J. Evol. Biol., 22, 1367-1375.
22. Froese, R. & Pauly, D. (2014). FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. Available at: http://www.fishbase.org, version (02/2014). Last accessed 25 May 2013.
23. Goldbogen, J.A., Potvin, J. & Shadwick, R.E. (2010). Skull and buccal cavity allometry increase mass-specific engulfment capacity in fin whales. Proc. Biol. Sci., 277, 861-868.
24. Hedenström, A. (2003). Scaling migration speed in animals that run, swim and fly. J. Zool., 259, 155-160.
25. Heithaus, M.R. (2001). Predator-prey and competitive interactions between sharks (order Selachii) and dolphins (suborder Odontoceti): a review. J. Zool., 253, 53-68.
26. Hutchinson, J. & Waser, P.M. (2007). Use, misuse and extensions of "ideal gas" models of animal encounter. Biol. Rev., 82, 335-359.
27. Isaac, N.J.B. & Carbone, C. (2010). Why are metabolic scaling exponents so controversial? Quantifying variance and testing hypotheses. Ecol. Lett., 13, 728-735.
28. Isaac, N.J.B., Storch, D. & Carbone, C. (2011). Taxonomic variation in size - density relationships challenges the notion of energy equivalence Subject collections Taxonomic variation in size - density relationships challenges the notion of energy equivalence. Biol. Lett., 7, 615-618.
29. Jetz, W., Carbone, C., Fulford, J. & Brown, J.H. (2004). The scaling of animal space use. Science, 306, 266-268.
30. Jones, K.E., Bielby, J., Cardillo, M., Fritz, S.A., O'Dell, J., Orme, C.D. et al. (2009). PanTHERIA: a species-level database of life history, ecology, and geography of extant and recently extinct mammals. Ecology, 90, 2648 (Ecological Archives E2090-2184).
31. King, R.B. (2002). Predicted and observed maximum prey size-snake size allometry. Funct. Ecol., 16, 766-772.
32. Koslow, J.A., Kloser, R.J. & Williams, A. (1997). Pelagic biomass and community structure over the mid-continental slope off southeastern Australia based upon acoustic and midwater trawl sampling. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 146, 21-35.
33. McGill, B.J. & Mittelbach, G.G. (2006). An allometric vision and motion model to predict prey encounter rates. Evol. Ecol., 8, 691-701.
34. McHenry, M.J. (2003). The ontogenetic scaling of hydrodynamics and swimming performance in jellyfish (Aurelia aurita). J. Exp. Biol., 206, 4125-4137.
35. Motta, P.J., Maslanka, M., Hueter, R.E., Davis, R.L., De la Parra, R., Mulvany, S.L. et al. (2010). Feeding anatomy, filter-feeding rate, and diet of whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) during surface ram filter feeding off the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Zoology, 113, 199-212.
36. Nemoto, T. & Kawamura, A. (1977). Characteristics of food habits and distribution of baleen whales with special reference to the abundance of North Pacific sei and Bryde's whales. Reports of the International Whaling Commission, Special, 1, 80-87.
37. Orme, D., Freckleton, R., Thomas, G., Petzoldt, T., Fritz, S. & Isaac, N. (2010). Caper: comparative analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R. R package version 0.4/r71. Available at: http://www.R-Forge.R-project.org/projects/caper/. Last accessed 27 September 2013.
38. Page, R.D.M. (1996). TREEVIEW: An application to display phylogenetic trees on personal computers. Comput. Appl. Biosci., 12, 357-358.
39. Pauly, D., Trites, A.W., Capuli, E. & Christensen, V. (1998). Diet composition and trophic levels of marine mammals. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 55, 467-481.
40. Pawar, S., Dell, A.I. & Savage, V.M. (2012). Dimensionality of consumer search space drives trophic interaction strengths. Nature, 486, 485-489.
41. Peters, R.H. (1983). The ecological implications of body size. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
42. Potvin, J., Goldbogen, J.A. & Shadwick, R.E. (2012). Metabolic expenditures of lunge feeding rorquals across scale: Implications for the evolution of filter feeding and the limits to maximum body size. PLoS ONE, 7, e44854.
43. Revell, L.J. (2010). Phylogenetic signal and linear regression on species data. Methods Ecol. Evol., 1, 319-329.
44. Schmidt-Nielsen, K. (1984). Scaling: Why is animal size so important?. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
45. Sims, D.W. (2000). Can threshold foraging responses of basking sharks be used to estimate their metabolic rate? Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 200, 289-296.
46. Sims, D.W. (2008). Sieving a living: a review of the biology, ecology and conservation status of the plankton-feeding basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus). Adv. Mar. Biol., 54, 171-220.
47. Slater, G.J., Price, S.A., Santini, F. & Alfaro, M.E. (2010). Diversity versus disparity and the radiation of modern cetaceans. Proc. Biol. Sci., 277, 3097-3104.
48. Smith, F.A. & Lyons, S.K. (2011). How big should a mammal be? A macroecological look at mammalian body size over space and time. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B, 366, 2364-2378.
49. Stahl, M., Osmann, C., Ortmann, S., Kreuzer, M., Hatt, J.-M. & Clauss, M. (2012). Energy intake for maintenance in a mammal with a low basal metabolism, the Giant anteater (Myrmecophaga tridactyla). J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr., 96, 818-824.
50. Tucker, M.A. & Rogers, T.L. (2014). Examining the prey mass of terrestrial and aquatic carnivorous mammals: minimum, maximum and range. PLoS ONE, 9, e106402.