The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Individual feeding specialisation in shorebirds: population consequences and conservation implications
Abstract
Individual feeding specialisation in shorebirds is reviewed, and the possible mechanisms involved in such specialisations. Any specialisation can be seen as an individual strategy, and the optimum strategy for any given individual will be conditional upon its specific priorities and constraints. Some specialisations are related to social status and some to individual skills. Some are also probably frequency‐dependent. However, most shorebird specialisations are constrained to a large extent by individual morphology, particularly bill morphology. For example, larger birds are able to handle larger prey, and birds with longer bills are able to feed on more deeply buried prey. Sex differences in bill length are uncommon in the Charardriidae, which are surface peckers, but are common in the Scolopacidae, which feed by probing in soft substrates. Sex differences in bill morphology are frequently associated with sex differences in feeding specialisation. There is evidence that different feeding specialisations are associated with different payoffs, in which case the probability of failing to reproduce or of dying will not be distributed equally throughout the population. I consider the population consequences of such feeding specialisations, particularly the different risks and benefits associated with different habitats or diets. I also consider the way in which individuals may differ in their response to habitat loss or change. I suggest that population models designed to predict the effect of habitat loss or change on shorebirds should have the ability to investigate the differential response of certain sections of the population, particularly different ages or sexes, that specialise in different diets or feeding methods.
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
Cites
ANDERSSON, M., & NORBERG, R. Å. (1981) · Biological Journal of the Linnean Society · doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1981.tb00752.x · Cited by 367
Cited by
The Ecology of Individuals: Incidence and Implications of Individual Specialization
Bolnick, D. I., Svanbäck, R., Fordyce, J. A., Yang, L. H., Davis, J. M., Hulsey, C. D., & Forister, M. L. (2003) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/343878 · Cited by 2,762
Constraints on the evolution of phenotypic plasticity: limits and costs of phenotype and plasticity
Murren, C. J., Auld, J. R., Callahan, H., Ghalambor, C. K., Handelsman, C. A., Heskel, M. A., Kingsolver, J. G., Maclean, H. J., Masel, J., Maughan, H., et al. (2015) · Heredity · doi:10.1038/hdy.2015.8 · Cited by 686
Metadata
- Authors
- DURELL, S. E. A. L. V. D.
- Venue
- Biological Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-11
- Volume
- 75
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 503-518
- ISSN
- 0006-3231 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-7931
- 1469-185X
- OpenAlex
- W2100795858
- Cited by
- 198
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 0.52
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Individual feeding specialisation in shorebirds: population consequences and conservation implications. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-185x.2000.tb00053.x
- The paper
- DURELL, S. E. A. L. V. D. (2000). Individual feeding specialisation in shorebirds: population consequences and conservation implications. Biological Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185x.2000.tb00053.x
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.