ArticlePloS one2017
Intraspecific variation in feeding strategies of Galapagos sea lions: A case of trophic specialization.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Health assessment of Galapagos pinniped pups during the 2024 El Niño event: hematological, biochemical, and morphometric findings.Veterinary world · 2026Article
- DNA-metabarcoding supports trophic flexibility and reveals new prey species for the Galapagos sea lion.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Cooperation and opportunism in Galapagos sea lion hunting for shoaling fish.Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
- Hormone-mediated foraging strategies in an uncertain environment: Insights into the at-sea behavior of a marine predator.Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
- Declines and recovery in endangered Galapagos pinnipeds during the El Niño event.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Individuality counts: A new comprehensive approach to foraging strategies of a tropical marine predator.Oecologia · 2021Article
- Developmental conditions promote individual differentiation of endocrine axes and behavior in a tropical pinniped.Oecologia · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The trophic behavior of marine predators varies according to the level of competition to which they are exposed. In general, populations that inhabit lower productivity systems face a strong intraspecific competition, which contributes to the development of different foraging strategies to maximize nutritional efficiency. Given the high trophic flexibility of Zalophus wollebaeki, this species is considered appropriate for the analysis of such behavior. Furthermore, this trophic flexibility has allowed them to persist in a seemingly marginal ecosystem. In this study, we used a comparative analysis of variables (diet and dive behavior) related to Z. wollebaeki trophic niche plasticity to better understand their foraging ecology, using techniques such scat analysis, satellite telemetry and complementarily an isotopic analysis. Scat analysis revealed intra-population variation in their diet, represented by prey from different environments (epipelagic and benthic). These results are supported by the animals' locations at sea and diving profiles. Global Positioning System (GPS) and time-depth recorder (TDR) records showed the existence of two groups, with differing feeding areas and diving behavior. Also the δ15N values showed differences in the trophic level at which the species fed. These results constitute a relevant finding in the evolutionary behavior of the species, showing that Z. wollebaeki has developed a high degree of foraging flexibility, thus increasing its survival rate in an ecosystem that is highly demanding in terms of resource availability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.