Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar a este item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/202296
COMPARTIR / EXPORTAR:
logo share SHARE BASE
Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL | DATACITE

Invitar a revisión por pares abierta
Campo DC Valor Lengua/Idioma
dc.contributor.authorMarco-Méndez, Candelaes_ES
dc.contributor.authorFerrero-Vicente, Luis Migueles_ES
dc.contributor.authorHeck, Kenneth L. Jres_ES
dc.date.accessioned2020-02-28T13:34:36Z-
dc.date.available2020-02-28T13:34:36Z-
dc.date.issued2020-
dc.identifier.citationEstuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 235 : 106575 (2020)es_ES
dc.identifier.issn0272-7714-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10261/202296-
dc.descriptionEste artículo contiene 8 páginas, 3 tablas, 4 figuras.es_ES
dc.description.abstractWhile it has been well established that waterbirds can consume substantial amounts of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) on their wintering grounds, relatively little is known about their effects on SAV in the northern Gulf of Mexico (nGOM). We measured the impact of wintering American coot (Fulica Americana) foraging on native wild celery (Vallisneria americana) and exotic Eurasian water milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) using caging experiments at two locations in upper Mobile Bay during winter 2013–2014. We also determined feeding preferences using tethering experiments, and monitored the location of coots and the feeding behavior of individual birds. Coots were significantly more abundant over Eurasian watermilfoil than native wild celery. Caging experiments usually showed higher SAV biomasses in exclusion cages, and suggested a larger impact of coot foraging on milfoil than wild celery. Video recordings confirmed that coots were responsible for the SAV losses detected with both caging and tethering experiments, and dietary analyses supported experimental results and highlighted the role of milfoil in the coot’s diet (86.9 � 8.9% of stomach contents). Tethering results showed a preference for wild celery over milfoil, which is likely explained by the higher nutritional quality of wild celery (19.26 � 1.21 C:N ratio) compared to Eurasian milfoil (25.01 � 2.45 C:N ratio). Overall, our results are similar to those of several prior seagrass herbivory studies in showing that herbivores do not always feed on their preferred food, presumably because other factors, such as proximity of refuges from predators or competition for food resources, are of overriding importance.es_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherElsevieres_ES
dc.rightsclosedAccesses_ES
dc.subjectExclusion experimentses_ES
dc.subjectHerbivoryes_ES
dc.subjectFood choicees_ES
dc.subjectFulica americanaes_ES
dc.subjectMyriophyllum spicatumes_ES
dc.subjectVallisneria americanaes_ES
dc.titleFeeding preference and foraging impact of wintering coots on submerged aquatic vegetationes_ES
dc.typeartículoes_ES
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer reviewedes_ES
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2019.106575es_ES
dc.identifier.e-issn1096-0015-
dc.relation.csices_ES
oprm.item.hasRevisionno ko 0 false*
dc.type.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501es_ES
item.openairetypeartículo-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.languageiso639-1en-
Aparece en las colecciones: (CEAB) Artículos
Show simple item record

CORE Recommender

Page view(s)

188
checked on 20-abr-2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


NOTA: Los ítems de Digital.CSIC están protegidos por copyright, con todos los derechos reservados, a menos que se indique lo contrario.