2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.actao.2006.02.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Habitat structure effects on size selection of snail kites (Rostrhamus sociabilis) and limpkins (Aramus guarauna) when feeding on apple snails (Pomacea spp.)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

3
23
0
2

Year Published

2009
2009
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
3
23
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition, the need to feed may overcome possible difficulties imposed by winds and rains. The size of shells of consumed snails found in the two marshes was very similar and within the size range reported in other studies: 4.6-5.8 cm reported by Estela and Naranjo (2005), 4-5.5 cm in Tanaka et al (2006) and 4-4.5 cm in Mapelli and Kittlein (2011). This suggests a selectivity regarding snail size.…”
Section: Indirect Evaluationsupporting
confidence: 67%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…In addition, the need to feed may overcome possible difficulties imposed by winds and rains. The size of shells of consumed snails found in the two marshes was very similar and within the size range reported in other studies: 4.6-5.8 cm reported by Estela and Naranjo (2005), 4-5.5 cm in Tanaka et al (2006) and 4-4.5 cm in Mapelli and Kittlein (2011). This suggests a selectivity regarding snail size.…”
Section: Indirect Evaluationsupporting
confidence: 67%
“…ground, vegetation), contrary to studies reporting the exclusive use of perches for prey handling (Collet, 1977;Tanaka et al, 2006). The use of several substrates may be an attempt to reduce the time between capture of the snail and the beginning of handling, since this was identified as the longest step in the feeding process.…”
Section: Direct Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 41%
See 3 more Smart Citations