Seabird foraging behaviour indicates prey type

140 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.

Sexual segregation in a wide-ranging marine predator is a consequence of habitat selection (2015, background): “In particular, 342 when large aggregations of gannets form during feeding events, prey may descend to deeper 343 depths to escape predation forcing gannets to dive deeper as a result (Elliott et al. 2008, 344 Capuska et al. 2011).”
Central-Place Foraging in an Arctic Seabird Provides Evidence for Storer-Ashmole's Halo (2009, methodology): “…TDRs) affect murre provisioning rates, trip duration, mass loss, dive depth, and time allocation during diving (Hamel et al. 2004; Paredes et al. 2004; Elliott et al. 2007, 2008a), our smaller, leg-mounted Lotek TDRs had no measurable effect on any of these parameters (Elliott et al. 2007, 2008d).”
Prey preferences among the community of deep-diving odontocetes from the Bay of Biscay, Northeast Atlantic (2011, unknown): “As seabirds which exhibit different dive behaviors according to whether the prey was a fish, a squid or a crustacean (Elliott et al., 2008), these difference in prey types imply probably different diving strategies among these predators.”
Confusion reigns? A review of marine megafauna interactions with tidal-stream environments (2015, background): “However, there are also distinct dietary variations at species-level, even within geographically similar areas, both between individuals (Elliott et al. 2008) and for the same individuals over time (Grémillet et al. 1998).”