Do larger cephalopods live longer? Effects of temperature and phylogeny on interspecific comparisons of age and size at maturity

Wood, James B.; O’Dor, R. K.

doi:10.1007/s002270050012

Cited by 61 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: Resale or Republication Not Permitted Without Written Consenmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Table 1 in , and, as already pointed out, many cephalopods also evolved migratory behaviors to exploit the seasonality of food resources. Thus, the growth of cephalopods in the wild seems to be primarily limited by predation rather than food shortages (Wood & O'Dor 2000). Predation is more likely to limit the growth of cephalopods because consumption by marine mammals, sea birds and fish is widespread, with some feeding exclusively on cephalopods (e.g.…”

Section: Relating Thermal Energy and Resource And Habitat Availabilitmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Relating Thermal Energy and Resource And Habitat Availabilitmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The resource availability (primary productivity) hypothesis assumes that body mass must be maintained by a sufficient food supply and predicts greater body sizes in more productive areas (Rosenzweig 1968). However, it is worth noting that cephalopods are voracious carnivores with many different feeding strategies that enable them to feed opportunistically on a wide range of prey , and their growth seems to be primarily limited by predation rather than food shortages (Wood & O'Dor 2000).Some also argue that species adopt smaller body sizes in more equatorial areas because of increased inter-and intra-specific competition for resources (McNab 1971, Ashton et al 2000. Because the feeding, behavior and reproduction of neritic cuttlefish, octopuses and squids are closely associated with seabed characteristics, one may argue that the larger continental shelves near the poles (i.e.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3). Other inter-specific studies also point out that larger size at maturity in cephalopods is a result of longer life spans (Van Heukelem 1976, Forsythe 1984, Wood & O'Dor 2000 rather than faster growth rates (Calow 1987).The 'temperature-size rule' was only tested in single populations of a single species (in a controlled environment), and therefore it assumes that all populations of a single species have the same reaction norm (i.e. no genetic differences between size at maturity and rearing temperature; see Belk & Houston 2002, p. 807).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Environmental determinants of latitudinal size-trends in cephalopods

Rosa¹,

González²,

Dierssen³

et al. 2012

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding patterns of body size variation is a fundamental goal in ecology, but although well studied in the terrestrial biota, little is known about broad-scale latitudinal trends of body size in marine fauna and much less about the factors that drive them. We conducted a comprehensive survey of interspecific body size patterns in coastal cephalopod mollusks, covering both hemispheres in the western and eastern Atlantic. We investigated the relationship between body size and thermal energy, resource and habitat availability and depth ranges. Both latitude and depth range had a significant effect on maximum body size in each of the major cephalopod groups (cuttlefishes, squids and octopuses). We observed significant negative associations between sea surface temperature (SST) and body size. No consistent relationships between body size and either net primary productivity (NPP), habitat extent (shelf area) or environmental variation (range of SST and NPP) were found. Thus, temperature seemed to play the most important role in structuring the distribution of cephalopod body size along the continental shelves of the Atlantic Ocean, and resource availability, seasonality or competition only played a limited role in determining latitudinal body size patterns.KEY WORDS: Body size · Ectotherms · Cephalopods · Thermal energy · Resource availability · Latitude · Temperature-size rule Resale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisherMar Ecol Prog Ser 464: [153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165] 2012 hypotheses suggest that ambient energy (temperature) is the best environmental explanatory variable for the latitudinal-size trends, both lack a convincing mechanistic explanation. The resource availability (primary productivity) hypothesis assumes that body mass must be maintained by a sufficient food supply and predicts greater body sizes in more productive areas (Rosenzweig 1968). However, it is worth noting that cephalopods are voracious carnivores with many different feeding strategies that enable them to feed opportunistically on a wide range of prey , and their growth seems to be primarily limited by predation rather than food shortages (Wood & O'Dor 2000).Some also argue that species adopt smaller body sizes in more equatorial areas because of increased inter-and intra-specific competition for resources (McNab 1971, Ashton et al. 2000. Because the feeding, behavior and reproduction of neritic cuttlefish, octopuses and squids are closely associated with seabed characteristics, one may argue that the larger continental shelves near the poles (i.e. greater habitat availability) could affect cephalopod body size variation by reducing competition. Moreover, variation in oxygen availability has been suggested to explain polar gigantism (Chapelle & Peck 1999) and size increase in the deep sea (McClain & Rex 2001, but also see Spicer & Gaston 1999 for a rebuttal of this idea). Seasonality (or fasting endurance) has also been advocated to explain latitudinal...

show abstract

Section: Resale or Republication Not Permitted Without Written Consenmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Relating Thermal Energy and Resource And Habitat Availabilitmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Relating Thermal Energy and Resource And Habitat Availabilitmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Environmental determinants of latitudinal size-trends in cephalopods

Rosa¹,

González²,

Dierssen³

et al. 2012

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

References

2005

Cephalopods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bioenergetic modelling of a marine top predator's responses to changes in prey structure

Silva,

Oliveira,

Prieto

et al. 2024

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Determining how animals allocate energy, and how external factors influence this allocation, is crucial to understand species' life history requirements and response to disturbance. This response is driven in part by individuals' energy balance, prey characteristics, foraging behaviour and energy required for essential functions. We developed a bioenergetic model to estimate minimum foraging success rate (FSR), that is, the lowest possible prey capture rate for individuals to obtain the minimum energy intake needed to meet daily metabolic requirements, for female sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus). The model was based on whales' theoretical energetic requirements using foraging and prey characteristics from animal‐borne tags and stomach contents, respectively. We used this model to simulate two prey structure change scenarios: (1) decrease in mean prey size, thus lower prey energy content and (2) decrease in prey size variability, reducing the variability in prey energy content. We estimate the whales need minimum of ~14% FSR to meet their energetic requirements, and energy intake is more sensitive to energy content changes than a decrease in energy variability. To estimate vulnerability to prey structure changes, we evaluated the compensation level required to meet bioenergetic demands. Considering a minimum 14% FSR, whales would need to increase energy intake by 21% (5–35%) and 49% (27–67%) to compensate for a 15% and 30% decrease in energy content, respectively. For a 30% and 50% decrease in energy variability, whales would need to increase energy intake by 13% (0–23%) and 24% (10–35%) to meet energetic demands, respectively. Our model demonstrates how foraging and prey characteristics can be used to estimate impact of changing prey structure in top predator energetics, which can help inform bottom‐up effects on marine ecosystems. We showed the importance of considering different FSR in bioenergetics models, as it can have decisive implications on estimates of energy acquired and affect the conclusions about top predator's vulnerability to possible environmental fluctuations.

show abstract

Do larger cephalopods live longer? Effects of temperature and phylogeny on interspecific comparisons of age and size at maturity

Cited by 61 publications

References 24 publications

Environmental determinants of latitudinal size-trends in cephalopods

Environmental determinants of latitudinal size-trends in cephalopods

References

Bioenergetic modelling of a marine top predator's responses to changes in prey structure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About