Partial Prey Consumption by Browsers: Trees as Patches

10.2307/5173 ◽  
1990 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 287 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marten Astrom ◽  
Per Lundberg ◽  
Kjell Danell
Keyword(s):  
Prey Consumption ◽  
Partial Prey Consumption

The causes and consequences of partial prey consumption by wolves preying on moose

2011 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 295-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
John A. Vucetich ◽  
Leah M. Vucetich ◽  
Rolf O. Peterson
Keyword(s):  
Prey Consumption ◽  
Partial Prey Consumption

Partial prey consumption by ambush predators

1985 ◽  
Vol 113 (3) ◽  
pp. 455-473 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey R. Lucas ◽  
Alan Grafen
Keyword(s):  
Prey Consumption ◽  
Ambush Predators ◽  
Partial Prey Consumption

Substrate Type Affects Partial Prey Consumption by Larvae of the Antlion Myrmeleon Acer (Neuroptera: Myrmeleontidae)

1996 ◽  
Vol 44 (6) ◽  
pp. 589 ◽  
Author(s):  
SJ Loiterton ◽  
RD Magrath
Keyword(s):  
Capture Rate ◽  
Handling Time ◽  
Fine Sand ◽  
Coarse Sand ◽  
Prey Consumption ◽  
Encounter Rate ◽  
Physiological Constraints ◽  
Capture Success ◽  
Partial Prey Consumption ◽  
Made In

Three types of hypotheses have been used to explain why predators often do not fully consume their prey. First, parts of the prey may be inedible. Second, physical or physiological constraints may be important. For example, gut capacity might limit the amount that can be taken in one meal, which may result in partial prey consumption. Third, individuals may choose to terminate feeding before an absolute constraint is reached. For example, some optimality models assume that partial prey consumption maximises rate of energy gain. Distinguishing between these hypotheses can be difficult because they may make qualitatively similar predictions. For example, as prey encounter rate increases, a smaller proportion of each prey item is consumed. We attempted to test between 'constraint' and 'choice' hypotheses by manipulating the expectation of capture independently of the actual capture rate for larvae of the antlion Myrmeleon acer. Ants escaped from artificial pits made in coarse sand more quickly than from pits made in fine sand, suggesting that capture success for antlions would be lower in coarse sand. Furthermore, antlions given the choice of these two substrates built their pits in fine sand. We therefore proposed that an antlion's 'expectation' of mean capture success will be lower when it is forced to build its pit in coarse sand compared with fine sand. We found that antlions in coarse sand consumed a greater proportion of their prey than did antlions in fine sand, contrary to the constraint hypotheses, but in support of choice models. Handling time did not differ between substrates, suggesting that antlion larvae may be able to modify digestion such that they can digest prey at a greater rate in poor conditions.

Molecular evaluation of American black bear prey consumption following diversionary feeding

Ursus ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (32e14) ◽  
Author(s):  
Genevieve Pugesek ◽  
Matthew A. Mumma ◽  
Shane P. Mahoney ◽  
Lisette P. Waits
Keyword(s):  
Black Bear ◽  
Prey Consumption ◽  
American Black Bear ◽  
American Black ◽  
Molecular Evaluation
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document