Assessing the importance of cephalopods in the diets of marine mammals and other top predators: problems and solutions

By M. Santos, M. Clarke, G. Pierce. 2001

221 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d7ebbb2dd8ba61262e9760b6979b34bbcf61d011

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Global and Planetary Change

Citations in the corpus

Review of Data on Diets of Beaked Whales: Evidence of Niche Separation and Geographic Segregation (2003, background): “This is particularly true of publications dealing with stomach contents analysis of stranded animals (e.g. Debrot & Barros, 1992; Lick & Piatkowski, 1998; Santos et al., 2001a,b).”
Diet overlap between harbour porpoise and bottlenose dolphin: An argument in favour of interference competition for food? (2006, unknown): “…this is likely to cause some biases in the quantification of the importance by number and by mass of the different species as the various diagnostic parts used in the analyses do not have the same retention times in the stomachs (e.g. Murie, 1987; Pierce and Boyle, 1991; Santos et al., 2001b).”
Future challenges in cephalopod research* (2014, background): “His assessment was based on the estimated amount of food needed to sustain the world’s sperm whale population (Clarke, 1996; Santos et al., 2001).”
Foraging ecology of five toothed whale species in the Northwest Iberian Peninsula, inferred using carbon and nitrogen isotope ratios (2012, background): “…since information provided by stomach contents normally allows the identification of the prey consumed shortly before the stomachs were collected (Pierce and Boyle, 1991) and varying time of digestion of different prey species can result in a overestimation of some species (Santos et al., 2001).”
Age-related shifts in the diet composition of southern elephant seals expand overall foraging niche (2007, background): “…et al. 1998; Slip 1995; Danieri et al. 2000; Piatkowski et al. 2002; Bradshaw et al. 2003; van den Hoff et al. 2003; van den Hoff 2004), although the variation in their relative proportions is less well-known (Santos et al. 2001) for ecological and methodological reasons (Bradshaw et al. 2003).”
Inter-specific and ontogenic differences in δ13C and δ15N values and Hg and Cd concentrations in cephalopods (2011, unknown): “However, it also requires a lot of time, it may be skewed by the differential digestion of the different prey, and it only represents the food ingested (and not assimilated) in the short-term (Hobson & Wassenaar 1999, Santos et al. 2001).”
Feeding ecology of phocid seals and some walrus in the Alaskan and Canadian Arctic as determined by stomach contents and stable isotope analysis (2006, background): “Secondary ingestion of prey, such as digestive tract contents of ingested fish, could also lead to biased prey assessments (Santos et al. 2001).”
Prey preferences among the community of deep-diving odontocetes from the Bay of Biscay, Northeast Atlantic (2011, unknown): “…scattered data on their feeding habits (e.g. Beatson and O’shea, 2009; Best, 2007; Blanco et al., 2006; Fernández et al., 2009; Gannon et al., 1997; Gonzalez et al., 1994; Jefferson and Barros, 1997; MacLeod et al., 2003; Santos et al., 1999, 2001b, c, 2002, 2006; see also references therein).”
Relationships between otolith size and fish size in some mesopelagic and bathypelagic species from the Mediterranean Sea (Strait of Messina, Italy) (2010, background): “, 2008), only certain geographical areas are covered and the access to reference material remains essential (Santos et al., 2001).”
Methods of estimating marine mammal diets: A review of validation experiments and sources of bias and uncertainty (2012, methodology): “With the exception of the use of DNA (a rapidly developing method), these methods have been extensively reviewed (e.g., Pierce and Boyle 1991, Pierce et al. 1993, Hobson et al. 1994, Bowen and Siniff 1999, Bowen 2000, Santos et al. 2001, Budge et al. 2006, Iverson 2009, Tollit et al. 2010).”