Variation in tolerance to hypoxia in a predator and prey species: an ecological advantage of being small?

By T. Robb, M. Abrahams. 2003

136 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Relative sensitivities of common freshwater fish and invertebrates to acute hypoxia (2005, background): “Recent studies have shown smaller fish to be more tolerant of low DO (Burleson et al. 2001; Robb & Abrahams 2003) and when subjected to an oxygen gradient, smaller fish will also occupy areas of lower DO than larger fish (Burleson et al. 2001).”
Seasonal and interannual effects of hypoxia on fish habitat quality in central Lake Erie (2011, background): “For example, the DO threshold for physiological and behavioural responses varies both among (Smale & Rabeni, 1995; Breitburg et al., 2003; Robb & Abrahams, 2003; Pollock et al., 2007) and within species (Burleson, Wilhelm & Smatresk, 2001; Robb & Abrahams, 2003).”
Body size in ecological networks. (2005, background): “Examples include rock crevices used by smaller, more vulnerable prey [30]; increased tolerance of hypoxic habitat patches by smaller species [ 31 ]; and ontogenetic shifts in habitat use [32].”
Developmental Plasticity, Genetic Differentiation, and Hypoxia-induced Trade-offs in an African Cichlid Fish (2008, background): “There are indeed indications of an association between a small brain size and a low predation pressure in fishes [71, 72], and a growing body of evidence that hypoxic habitats may serve as a refuge for small fishes from large aquatic predators [73-76].”