Cited by 546Marine animal studies overviewWildlife Ecology and ConservationIchthyology and Marine Biology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

FOOD AVAILABILITY AND TIGER SHARK PREDATION RISK INFLUENCE BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN HABITAT USE

Abstract

Although both food availability and predation risk have been hypothesized to affect dolphin habitat use and group size, no study has measured both factors concurrently to determine their relative influences. From 1997 to 1999, we investigated the effect of food availability and tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier) predation risk on bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops aduncus) habitat use and group size in Shark Bay, Western Australia. Food availability was measured by fish trapping, while predation risk was assessed by shark catch rates, acoustic tracks, and Crittercam deployments. Dolphin habitat use was determined using belt transects. The biomass of dolphin prey did not vary seasonally and was significantly greater in shallow habitats than in deeper ones. Tiger sharks were virtually absent during cold months of 1997 and 1998, abundant in warm months of all years, and found at an intermediate density during cold months of 1999. When present, shark density was highest in shallow habitats. Decreased echolocation efficiency in very shallow water and poor visual detection of tiger sharks (camouflaged over seagrass) probably further enhance the riskiness of such habitats, and the relative riskiness of shallow habitats is supported by the observation that dolphins select deep waters in which to rest. The observed dolphin group sizes were consistent with a food–safety trade‐off. Groups were larger in more dangerous shallow habitats and larger during resting than during foraging. Foraging dolp…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[0480:faatsp]2.0.co;2

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 44 references

3 of the 44 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. G. J. Marshall, 1998 .Crittercam: an animal-borne imaging and data logging system .Marine Technology Society Journal,32:11 -17 .
  2. K. S. Norris, and T. P. Dohl .1980a.Behavior of the Hawaiian spinner dolphin,Stenella longirostris.U.S .Fishery Bulletin,77:821 -849 .

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 546

Metadata

Authors
Heithaus, M. R., & Dill, L. M.
Affiliations
Simon Fraser University (CA)
Corresponding author
Heithaus, Michael R.
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-02
Volume
83
Issue
2
Pages
480-491
ISSN
0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2124577949
Cited by
544
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 37 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 38
FWCI
10.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Ecology (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Geographic Society
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Marine animal studies overview
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ichthyology and Marine Biology
Keywords
Tursiops truncatus, Tursiops aduncus, tiger shark, habitat use, predation risk, food availability, group size, Shark Bay, foraging behavior, resting behavior, predator-prey interactions, seasonal variation, seagrass habitat, echolocation

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