The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Molecular identification of prey in predator diets
Abstract
In many situations prey choice by predators in the field cannot be established or quantified using direct observation. The remains of some prey may be visually identified in the guts and faeces of predators but not all predators ingest such hard remains and even those that do consume them may also ingest soft‐bodies prey that leave no recognizable remnants. The result is, at best, a biased picture of prey choice. A range of molecular techniques and applications are reviewed that allow prey remains to be identified, often to the species and even stage level. These techniques, all of which are still in use, include enzyme electrophoresis, a range of immunological approaches using polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies to detect protein epitopes, and recently developed polymerase chain reaction (PCR)‐based methods for detecting prey DNA. Analyses may be postmortem, on invertebrate and vertebrate predators collected from the field, or noninvasive assays of the remains in regurgitated bird pellets or vertebrate faeces. It was concluded that although monoclonal antibodies are currently the most effective method in use today, PCR‐based techniques have proved to be highly effective and versatile in recent laboratory trials and are likely to rapidly displace all other approaches.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Predatory activity and spatial pattern: the response of generalist carabids to their aphid prey
WINDER, L., ALEXANDER, C. J., HOLLAND, J. M., SYMONDSON, W. O. C., PERRY, J. N., & WOOLLEY, C. (2005) · Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2005.00939.x · Cited by 98
Self-citationDietary DNA Metabarcoding From Animal Fecal Samples
McConnell, R. D., Jarrett, C., Ferreira, D. F., Powell, L. L., Quiñones, A. L. S., Dominoni, D. M., & Welch, A. J. (2026) · Current Protocols · doi:10.1002/cpz1.70226 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Symondson, W. O. C.
- Venue
- Molecular Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-04
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 627-641
- ISSN
- 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-294X
- OpenAlex
- W2114703217
- Cited by
- 814
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 16.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.