Monitoring a marine ecosystem using responses of upper trophic level predators

By I. Boyd, A. W. Murray. 2001

167 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/de6b056e4ec8016adfe5757bd34fa56925714f15

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology

1. P. Trathan
2. A. Miller
3. W. Trivelpiece
4. H. Österblom
5. N. Karnovsky
6. Olof Olsson
7. J. Link
8. S. Hill

In Global and Planetary Change

1. J. Link
2. P. Trathan
3. A. Miller
4. W. Trivelpiece
5. N. Karnovsky
6. S. Hill
7. W. Overholtz
8. A. Lescroël

Citations in the corpus

• Habitat modelling of tracking data from multiple marine predators identifies important areas in the Southern Indian Ocean (2018, background): “Therefore, marine top predators are touted as sentinels of marine ecosystems, which potentially integrate diverse and complex environmental signals (e.g., Boyd & Murray, 2001; Durant et al., 2009; Moore, 2008).”
• Options for allocating the precautionary catch limit of krill among small-scale management units in the Scotia Sea (2004, unknown): “The predator and krill data for South Georgia describe response functions (Figure 2) similar to those described for combined indices of predator performance at South Georgia (Boyd and Murray, 2001; Boyd, 2002b).”
• Marine ecosystem assessment in a fisheries management context (2002, background): “Yet only a few recent examples have recognized the feasibility of actually assessing major components of marine ecosystems (Boyd and Murray 2001; Eisenack and Kropp 2001; Pitcher and Preikshot 2001).”
• Junk-food in marine ecosystems (2008, background): “North Sea (Isle of May) Breeding success Positive correlations with index of availability of 1 � sandeels Boyd and Murray 2001 Fur seal”
• The Importance of Krill Predation in the Southern Ocean (2016, background): “…Murphy et al. 1997); (ii) the functional responses of the monitored species to differing levels of krill abundance are not well understood (e.g. Boyd and Murray 2001, Barlow et al. 2002); and (iii) the monitored species are unlikely to be the major consumers of krill and the relationships…”
• Flexible foraging strategies of gentoo penguins Pygoscelis papua over 5 years in the South Shetland Islands, Antarctica (2009, background): “A reduction in seaice could improve the foraging habitat for gentoo penguins as they are an open water species; nonetheless, krill is the primary diet item for gentoo penguins in this region, and failures in gentoo penguin breeding success have been associated with low krill abundance (Croxall et al”
• Nematodes as soil indicators: functional and biodiversity aspects (2003, background): “stress, restrained competition, production, habitat structure; Colinvaux 1993), (b) soil populations are part of complex ecosystems (Boyd and Murray 2001), (c) the relationship between above- and below-ground diversity (and system function) has not been clarified (Wardle 2002), and (d) there is no u”
• Foraging under contrasting oceanographic conditions: the gentoo penguin at Kerguelen Archipelago (2005, background): “Yet, such studies might provide original information on the local availability and characteristics of marine prey populations (Ridoux 1988) and help to monitor coastal marine ecosystems (Boyd & Murray 2001).”
• Antarctic ecosystem monitoring: quantifying the response of ecosystem indicators to variability in Antarctic krill (2005, methodology): “…for Antarctic fur seals (Arctocephalus gazella), gentoo penguins (Pygoscelis papua), macaroni penguins (Eudyptes chrysolophus), and black-browed albatrosses Thalassarche melanophris (Table 1; for detailed description see Croxall et al., 1988, 1999; Boyd and Murray, 2001; Reid and Croxall, 2001).”