4.5 Article

Prey size, prey nutrition, and food handling by shrews of different body sizes

Journal

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY
Volume 13, Issue 2, Pages 216-223

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/13.2.216

Keywords

energy requirements; food hoarding; foraging behavior; optimal foraging strategy; prey energetic value; prey size preferences

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We tested some predictions relating metabolic constraints of foraging behavior and prey selection by comparing food handling and utilization in four sympatric shrew species: Sorex minutes (mean body mass = 3.0 g), S. araneus (8.0 g), Neomys anomalus (10.0 g), and N. fodiens (14.4 g). Live fly larvae, mealworm larvae, and aquatic arthropods were offered to shrews as small prey (body mass <0.1 g). Live earthworms, snails, and small fish were offered as large prey (>0.3 g). The larvae were the high-nutrition food (>8 kJ/g), and the other prey were the low-nutrition food (<4 kJ/g). The smallest shrew, S. minutus, utilized (ate + hoarded) <30% of offered food, and the other species utilized >48% of food. The larger the shrew, the more prey it ate per capita. However, highly energetic insect larvae composed 75% of food utilized by S. minutus and only >40% of die food utilized by the other species. Thus, inverse relationships appeared between shrew body mass and mass-specific food mass utilization and between shrew body mass and mass-specific food energy utilization: the largest shrew, N. fodiens, utilized the least food mass and the least energy quantity per 1 g of its body mass. Also, the proportion of food hoarded by shrews decreased with increase in size of shrew. With die exception of S. araneus, the size of prey hoarded by the shrews was significantly larger than die size of prey eaten. Tiny S. minutes hoarded and ate smaller prey items than the other shrews, and large N. fodiens hoarded larger prey than the other shrews.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available