Complex prey handling of octopus by bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus)

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 934-945 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate R. Sprogis ◽  
Holly C. Raudino ◽  
David Hocking ◽  
Lars Bejder
2016 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. C. Smith ◽  
K. R. Sprogis

We report on observations of Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus) feeding on giant cuttlefish (Sepia apama) from March 2007 to April 2013 in the temperate waters off Bunbury, south-western Australia. Seventeen feeding events were observed during the cooler months between July and September in relatively shallow coastal waters, with 12 dolphins identified as adult females. We observed behavioural sequences of complex prey-handling of cuttlefish where dolphins’ used multiple steps to remove the cuttlefish head, ink and cuttlebone before consuming the flesh of the cuttlefish mantle. Our study provides valuable information to the limited knowledge on the complex prey-handling by T. aduncus on cuttlefish in Australia, and is complementary to other known specialised foraging behaviours of bottlenose dolphins. This study also details a different behavioural sequence of cuttlefish prey-handling to that of the bottlenose dolphins in the Sado estuary, Portugal, where only the head is consumed, and to the Spencer Gulf, Australia, in that the dolphins in Bunbury carry the cuttlefish mantle over their rostrum before removing the cuttlebone. Information on S. apama in Bunbury is scarce, therefore studies on abundance, distribution and egg-laying sites are recommended in order to enable informed decision making and to understand the importance of S. apama to the diet of T. aduncus.


2015 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 455-468 ◽  
Author(s):  
Estênio G. Paiva ◽  
Chandra P. Salgado Kent ◽  
Marthe Monique Gagnon ◽  
Robert McCauley ◽  
Hugh Finn

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rhianne Ward ◽  
Iain Parnum ◽  
Christine Erbe ◽  
Chandra Salgado-Kent

2021 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 311-320
Author(s):  
Miki Shirakihara ◽  
Miki Nishita ◽  
Masao Amano ◽  
Kunio Shirakihara ◽  
Teruo Kasedou ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 98 (7) ◽  
pp. 461-479 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Jedensjö ◽  
C.M. Kemper ◽  
M. Milella ◽  
E.P. Willems ◽  
M. Krützen

Species relationships in the bottlenose dolphin (genus Tursiops Gervais, 1855) are controversial. We carried out a comprehensive osteological study of 264 skulls, including type specimens, and 90 postcranial skeletons of Tursiops spp. to address taxonomic uncertainties in Australia using two-dimensional (2D) measurements, and three-dimensional geometric morphometrics (3DGM), tooth and vertebral counts, and categorical data. Analyses provided support for the presence of two forms, aligned to the Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops aduncus (Ehrenberg, 1832)) and the common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus (Montagu, 1821)), including type specimens. The Burrunan dolphin (Tursiops australis Charlton-Robb, Gershwin, Thompson, Austin, Owen and McKechnie, 2011) fell well within T. truncatus for both 2D and 3DGM methods. Thirteen Tursiops spp. specimens, no T. australis specimens, were of intermediate size (2D) and could not be assigned to either species. For 3DGM data, there was a strong allometric influence and few non-allometric differences between species. Length and width of the cranium and rostrum were important discriminating variables. Tursiops aduncus was smaller, had more teeth, fewer vertebrae, and more erosion on the pterygoids and frontals than T. truncatus. Overall cranium shape was round in T. aduncus and angular in T. truncatus. Skull length of T. aduncus was smaller in low than in high latitudes. This study highlights the importance of large sample size, multiple analytical methods, and extensive geographical coverage when undertaking taxonomic studies.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (9) ◽  
pp. e0201722 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Gridley ◽  
S. H. Elwen ◽  
G. Harris ◽  
D. M. Moore ◽  
A. R. Hoelzel ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document