Brain mass explains prey size selection better than beak, gizzard and body size in a benthivorous duck species

Prey size selection in some bird species is determined by the size of the beak. However, we assumed for bird species swallowing whole prey that a cognitive process may be involved. As cognitive feature, brain mass was used. We hypothesized that the mass of the brain was more strongly positively corr...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:PLOS ONE
Main Authors: Laursen, Karsten, Møller, Anders Pape
Other Authors: Paiva, Vitor Hugo Rodrigues, 15 June Foundation, Denmark
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2021
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248615
https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248615
id crplos:10.1371/journal.pone.0248615
record_format openpolar
spelling crplos:10.1371/journal.pone.0248615 2024-05-19T07:48:29+00:00 Brain mass explains prey size selection better than beak, gizzard and body size in a benthivorous duck species Laursen, Karsten Møller, Anders Pape Paiva, Vitor Hugo Rodrigues 15 June Foundation, Denmark 2021 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248615 https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248615 en eng Public Library of Science (PLoS) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ PLOS ONE volume 16, issue 3, page e0248615 ISSN 1932-6203 journal-article 2021 crplos https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248615 2024-05-01T06:54:26Z Prey size selection in some bird species is determined by the size of the beak. However, we assumed for bird species swallowing whole prey that a cognitive process may be involved. As cognitive feature, brain mass was used. We hypothesized that the mass of the brain was more strongly positively correlated with prey size than morphological features such as beak volume, gizzard mass and body mass. We tested this hypothesis on eiders Somateria mollissima that swallow the prey whole, by using mean and maximum size of nine prey categories. Eiders were collected at the main wintering grounds in Denmark. As index of brain mass we used head volume, which is positively correlated with brain mass ( r 2 = 0.73). Head volume of eiders was significantly, positive correlated with mean and maximum size of blue mussels Mytilus edulis , razor clams Ensis directus and all prey sizes combined and the maximum size of draft whelk Hinia reticulata and conch Buccinum undatum . Gizzard mass was also significantly positively correlated with maximum size of draft whelk and conch. Beak volume and body mass was not significantly correlated with the size of any of the nine food items. Analyses of effect size for organs showed that head volume was positively related to prey size, whereas beak volume, gizzard mass and body mass did not show a significant positive relationship. These results indicate that cognitive processes connected to brain mass may be involved in prey size selection by eiders. Article in Journal/Newspaper Somateria mollissima PLOS PLOS ONE 16 3 e0248615
institution Open Polar
collection PLOS
op_collection_id crplos
language English
description Prey size selection in some bird species is determined by the size of the beak. However, we assumed for bird species swallowing whole prey that a cognitive process may be involved. As cognitive feature, brain mass was used. We hypothesized that the mass of the brain was more strongly positively correlated with prey size than morphological features such as beak volume, gizzard mass and body mass. We tested this hypothesis on eiders Somateria mollissima that swallow the prey whole, by using mean and maximum size of nine prey categories. Eiders were collected at the main wintering grounds in Denmark. As index of brain mass we used head volume, which is positively correlated with brain mass ( r 2 = 0.73). Head volume of eiders was significantly, positive correlated with mean and maximum size of blue mussels Mytilus edulis , razor clams Ensis directus and all prey sizes combined and the maximum size of draft whelk Hinia reticulata and conch Buccinum undatum . Gizzard mass was also significantly positively correlated with maximum size of draft whelk and conch. Beak volume and body mass was not significantly correlated with the size of any of the nine food items. Analyses of effect size for organs showed that head volume was positively related to prey size, whereas beak volume, gizzard mass and body mass did not show a significant positive relationship. These results indicate that cognitive processes connected to brain mass may be involved in prey size selection by eiders.
author2 Paiva, Vitor Hugo Rodrigues
15 June Foundation, Denmark
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Laursen, Karsten
Møller, Anders Pape
spellingShingle Laursen, Karsten
Møller, Anders Pape
Brain mass explains prey size selection better than beak, gizzard and body size in a benthivorous duck species
author_facet Laursen, Karsten
Møller, Anders Pape
author_sort Laursen, Karsten
title Brain mass explains prey size selection better than beak, gizzard and body size in a benthivorous duck species
title_short Brain mass explains prey size selection better than beak, gizzard and body size in a benthivorous duck species
title_full Brain mass explains prey size selection better than beak, gizzard and body size in a benthivorous duck species
title_fullStr Brain mass explains prey size selection better than beak, gizzard and body size in a benthivorous duck species
title_full_unstemmed Brain mass explains prey size selection better than beak, gizzard and body size in a benthivorous duck species
title_sort brain mass explains prey size selection better than beak, gizzard and body size in a benthivorous duck species
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate 2021
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248615
https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248615
genre Somateria mollissima
genre_facet Somateria mollissima
op_source PLOS ONE
volume 16, issue 3, page e0248615
ISSN 1932-6203
op_rights http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248615
container_title PLOS ONE
container_volume 16
container_issue 3
container_start_page e0248615
_version_ 1799466739658915840