Who is eating whom? Morphology and feeding type determine the size relation between planktonic predators and their ideal prey

141 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.

Maximal feeding with active prey-switching: A kill-the-winner functional response and its effect on global diversity and biogeography (2014, background): “…(Gentleman et al., 2003), either in terms of feeding strategy (e.g. from passive suspension feeding to active ambush feeding) (Kiørboe et al., 1996; Gismervik and Andersen, 1997; Wirtz, 2012b) or learning how to increase the efficiency of capturing and handling certain prey types (Murdoch, 1973).”
Production, mortality, and infectivity of planktonic larval sea lice, Lepeophtheirus salmonis (Krøyer, 1837): current knowledge and implications for epidemiological modelling (2018, background): “…difficult as plankton assemblages vary considerably according to season and location (e.g. Daewel et al., 2014), and prey selection sizes vary amongst the different actively or passively predating species represented in the zooplankton community at any time (Hansen et al., 1994; Wirtz, 2011, 2012).”