2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecss.2019.02.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Food preferences of two sandy beach scavengers with different foraging strategies

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
1
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
1
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…There was no significant difference between the number of ghost crab observations at AMDROtreated nests and cornmeal-treated nests, a finding consistent with previous research showing that ghost crabs primarily locate food by smell (Wellins et al 1989, Harris et al 2019. The scent of the cornmeal carrier could be a ghost crab attractant.…”
Section: Nest Survival and Productivitysupporting
confidence: 87%
“…There was no significant difference between the number of ghost crab observations at AMDROtreated nests and cornmeal-treated nests, a finding consistent with previous research showing that ghost crabs primarily locate food by smell (Wellins et al 1989, Harris et al 2019. The scent of the cornmeal carrier could be a ghost crab attractant.…”
Section: Nest Survival and Productivitysupporting
confidence: 87%
“…Under the framework of optimal foraging theory (Stephens and Krebs, 1986), animals are thought to have evolved foraging strategies that increase individual fitness by maximizing the benefits while minimizing the costs and risks related to the exploitation of resources in their natural habitats (Charnov, 1976). In turn, the outcomes of this optimization are suggested to be reflected in a variety of observable behaviors and domains, such as spatial ecology (Pyke, 2019b;Tórrez-Herrera et al, 2020), patch use (Bedoya-Perez et al, 2013) and dietary preferences (Harris et al, 2019). Accordingly, the evolution of foraging strategies must be accompanied by the evolution of (i) cognitive abilities that allow for a contextual computation of costs and benefits resulting in the decision-making processes expressed as behavior (Rosati, 2017) and (ii) their specific neuroanatomical correlates, such as overall brain size (e.g., DeCasien et al, 2017) or the size of specific brain regions involved in those processes (e.g., Louail et al, 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%