Comparisons between the influence of habitat type, season and body size on the dietary compositions of fish species in nearshore marine waters

By L. Schafer, M. E. Platell, F. Valesini, I. Potter. 2002

108 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.

Comparisons between the diets of four abundant species of elasmobranchs in a subtropical embayment: implications for resource partitioning (2004, background): “Werner and Gilliam 1984; Schafer et al. 2002 ), the extent to which competition is likely for food resources within and amongst species will depend, to a certain extent, on the relative sizes of the individuals of each species and of the different species.”
Does transported seagrass provide an important trophic link in unvegetated, nearshore areas? (2005, background): “Harpacticoid copepods form a considerable part of the diet of small juveniles of species in this environment (Jenkins et al., 1995; Schafer et al., 2002).”
Fish gut content analysis: robust measures of diet composition (2014, background): “1) cannot be visually allocated to any prey category with absolute confidence, regardless of how prey categories are defined (Schafer et al. 2002).”
Standardising fish stomach content analysis: The importance of prey condition (2017, result): “…when counts are made conservatively for fragmented prey (e.g. Branco et al., 1997; Hoover et al., 2007), the present study found the numeric approach to provide much more unambiguous data than the bulk approaches, in contrast to the views of others (e.g. Prince et al., 1982; Schafer et al., 2002).”