, Volume 178, Issue 1, pp 5–16 | Cite as

Factors affecting individual foraging specialization and temporal diet stability across the range of a large “generalist” apex predator

  • Adam E. RosenblattEmail author
  • James C. Nifong
  • Michael R. Heithaus
  • Frank J. Mazzotti
  • Michael S. Cherkiss
  • Brian M. Jeffery
  • Ruth M. Elsey
  • Rachel A. Decker
  • Brian R. Silliman
  • Louis J. GuilletteJr.
  • Russell H. Lowers
  • Justin C. Larson
Special Topic: Individual-level niche specialization


Individual niche specialization (INS) is increasingly recognized as an important component of ecological and evolutionary dynamics. However, most studies that have investigated INS have focused on the effects of niche width and inter- and intraspecific competition on INS in small-bodied species for short time periods, with less attention paid to INS in large-bodied reptilian predators and the effects of available prey types on INS. We investigated the prevalence, causes, and consequences of INS in foraging behaviors across different populations of American alligators (Alligator mississippiensis), the dominant aquatic apex predator across the southeast US, using stomach contents and stable isotopes. Gut contents revealed that, over the short term, although alligator populations occupied wide ranges of the INS spectrum, general patterns were apparent. Alligator populations inhabiting lakes exhibited lower INS than coastal populations, likely driven by variation in habitat type and available prey types. Stable isotopes revealed that over longer time spans alligators exhibited remarkably consistent use of variable mixtures of carbon pools (e.g., marine and freshwater food webs). We conclude that INS in large-bodied reptilian predator populations is likely affected by variation in available prey types and habitat heterogeneity, and that INS should be incorporated into management strategies to efficiently meet intended goals. Also, ecological models, which typically do not consider behavioral variability, should include INS to increase model realism and applicability.


American alligator Alligator mississippiensis Stomach content analysis Stable isotope analysis Food web 



We thank Michael Delany, Steven Gabrey, and Amanda Rice for generously allowing us to use their alligator stomach contents data. This research was made possible by funding from the National Science Foundation through the Florida Coastal Everglades Long-Term Ecological Research program under Grant No. DBI-0620409 and from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under Award No. NA10NOS4200022 (09102903). Additional funding was provided by Florida International University (FIU) and the University of Florida (UF). A.E.R. was supported by an FIU Dissertation Year Fellowship during manuscript preparation. All animal care and use was performed in accordance with the UF Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) under Protocol No. 201005071, the FIU IACUC under Protocol No. 09-015 and 09-013, and the Kennedy Space Center IACUC under Protocol No. GRD-06-044. All field collections were performed under FFWCC Scientific Collecting Permit No. SPGS-10-44R and SPGS-10-43, Georgia Department of Natural Resources Scientific Collecting Permit No. 29-WBH-10-33, and Everglades National Park Permit No. 0024, 0025, and 0031. We thank all the volunteers who assisted with field work and data collection, especially Phil Matich, Kirk Gastrich, Katy Cameron, Greg Mineau, and Derek Burkholder. Use of trade, product, or firm names does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government or the authors. All work carried out in this study comply with the current laws of the USA.

Conflict of interest

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

442_2014_3201_MOESM1_ESM.docx (46 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 46 kb)


  1. Adams D, Paperno R (2012) Stable isotopes and mercury in a model estuarine fish: multibasin comparisons with water quality, community structure, and available prey base. Sci Total Environ 414:445–455CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Araujo M, Bolnick DI, Machado G, Giaretta AA, dos Reis SF (2007) Using δ13C stable isotopes to quantify individual-level diet variation. Oecologia 152:643–654CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Araujo M, Bolnick DI, Martinelli LA, Giaretta AA, dos Reis SF (2009) Individual-level diet variation in four species of Brazilian frogs. J Anim Ecol 78:848–856CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Araujo M, Bolnick DI, Layman CA (2011) The ecological causes of individual specialisation. Ecol Lett 14:948–958CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bachmann R, Hoyer MV, Canfield DE (1999) The restoration of Lake Apopka in relation to alternative stable states. Hydrobiologia 394:219–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baird RW, Abrams PA, Dill LM (1992) Possible indirect inter- actions between transient and resident killer whales: implications for the evolution of foraging specializations in the genus Orcinus. Oecologia 89:125–132Google Scholar
  7. Bolnick D, Yang LH, Fordyce JA, Davis JM, Svanback R (2002) Measuring individual-level resource specialization. Ecology 83:2936–2941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bolnick D, Svanback R, Fordyce JA, Yang LH, Davis JM, Husley CD, Forister ML (2003) The ecology of individuals: incidence and implications of individual specialization. Am Nat 161:1–28CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bolnick D, Svanback R, Araujo MS, Persson L (2007) Comparative support for the niche variation hypothesis that more generalized populations also are more heterogeneous. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:10075–10079CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bolnick D, Ingram T, Stutz WE, Snowberg LK, Lau OL, Paull JS (2010) Ecological release from interspecific competition leads to decoupled changes in population and individual niche width. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:1789–1797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dalerum F, Angerbjorn A (2005) Resolving temporal variation in vertebrate diets using naturally occurring stable isotopes. Oecologia 144:647–658CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Dall S, Bell AM, Bolnick DI, Ratnieks FLW (2012) An evolutionary ecology of individual differences. Ecol Lett 15:1189–1198CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Darby P, Bennetts RE, Karunaratne LB (2006) Apple snail densities in habitats used by foraging snail kites. Fla Field Nat 34:37–47Google Scholar
  14. Darimont C, Paquet PC, Reimchen TE (2009) Landscape heterogeneity and marine subsidy generate extensive intrapopulation niche diversity in a large terrestrial vertebrate. J Anim Ecol 78:126–133CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Delany M (1990) Late summer diet of juvenile American alligators. J Herpetol 24:418–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Delany M, Abercrombie CL (1986) American alligator food-habits in north-central Florida. J Wildl Manag 50:348–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Delany M, Woodward AR, Kochel IH (1988) Nuisance alligator food habits in Florida. Fla Field Nat 16:90–96Google Scholar
  18. Delany M, Linda SB, Moore CT (1999) Diet and condition of American alligators in 4 Florida lakes. Proc Annu Conf Southeast Assoc Fish Wildl Agencies 53:375–389Google Scholar
  19. Doren R, Trexler JC, Gottlieb AD, Harwell MC (2009) Ecological indicators for system-wide assessment of the greater Everglades ecosystem restoration program. Ecol Indic 9S:S2–S16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elsey R, McNease L, Joanen T, Kinler N (1992) Food habits of native wild and farm-released juvenile alligators. Proc Annu Conf Southeast Assoc Fish Wildl Agencies 46:57–66Google Scholar
  21. Estes J, Riedman ML, Staedler MM, Tinker MT, Lyon BE (2003) Individual variation in prey selection by sea otters: patterns, causes and implications. J Anim Ecol 72:144–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fitzgerald L (1989) An evaluation of stomach flushing techniques for crocodilians. J Herpetol 23:170–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ford J, Ellis GM, Barrett-Lennard LG, Morton AB, Palm RS, Balcomb KC (1998) Dietary specialization in two sympatric populations of killer whales (Orcinus orca) in coastal British Columbia and adjacent waters. Can J Zool 76:1456–1471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fry B (2006) Stable isotope ecology. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gabrey S (2010) Demographic and geographic variation in food habits of American alligators (Alligator mississippiensis) in Louisiana. Herpetol Conserv Biol 5:241–250Google Scholar
  26. Garnett S (1985) The consequences of slow chitin digestion on crocodilian diet analyses. J Herpetol 19:303–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goodwin T, Marion WR (1979) Seasonal activity and habitat preferences of adult alligators in a north-central Florida lake. J Herpetol 13:157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gu B, Schelske CL, Hoyer MV (1997) Intrapopulation feeding diversity in blue tilapia: evidence from stable-isotope analyses. Ecology 78:2263–2266Google Scholar
  29. Heithaus M (2013) Predators, prey, and the ecological roles of sea turtles. In: Wyneken J, Lohmann KJ, Musick JA (eds) The biology of sea turtles, vol III. CRC, Boca Raton, pp 249–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Holling C (1959) Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can Entomol 91:385–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Janes D, Gutzke WHN (2002) Factors affecting retention time of turtle scutes in stomachs of American alligators, Alligator mississippiensis. Am Midl Nat 148:115–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kislalioglu M, Gibson RN (1976) Prey “handling-time” and its importance in food selection by the 15-spined stickleback, Spinachi spinachia (L.). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 25:151–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Knudsen R, Primicerio R, Amundsen P, Klemetsen A (2010) Temporal stability of individual feeding specialization may promote speciation. J Anim Ecol 79:161–168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Layman C, Quattrochi JP, Peyer CM, Allgeier JE (2007) Niche width collapse in a resilient top predator following ecosystem fragmentation. Ecol Lett 10:937–944CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Matich P, Heithaus MR, Layman CA (2011) Contrasting patterns of individual specialization and trophic coupling in two marine apex predators. J Anim Ecol 80:294–305CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Mazzotti F, Brandt LA (1994) Ecology of the American alligator in a seasonally fluctuating environment. In: Davis D, Ogden J (eds) Everglades: the ecosystem and its restoration. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, pp 485–505Google Scholar
  37. Nifong J, Rosenblatt AE, Johnson NA, Barichivich W, Silliman BR, Heithaus MR (2012) American alligator digestion rate of blue crabs and its implications for stomach contents analysis. Copeia 2012:419–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Peterson B, Howarth RW (1987) Sulfur, carbon, and nitrogen isotopes used to trace organic matter flow in the salt-marsh estuaries of Sapelo Island, Georgia. Limnol Oceanogr 32:1195–1213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Polidori C, Santoro D, Blüthgen N (2013) Does prey mobility affect niche width and individual specialization in hunting wasps? A network-based analysis. Oikos 122:385–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Polis G (1984) Age structure component of niche width and intraspecific resource partitioning: can age groups function as ecological species? Am Nat 123:541–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Quevedo M, Svanback R, Eklov P (2009) Intrapopulation niche partitioning in a generalist predator limits food web connectivity. Ecology 90:2263–2274CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Rice A, Ross JP, Finger AG, Owen R (2005) Application and evaluation of a stomach flushing technique for alligators. Herpetol Rev 36:400–401Google Scholar
  43. Rice A, Ross JP, Woodward AR, Carbonneau DA, Percival HF (2007) Alligator diet in relation to alligator mortality on Lake Griffin, FL. Southeast Nat 6:97–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ripple W, Estes JA, Beschta RL, Wilmers CC, Ritchie EG, Hebblewhite M, Berger J, Elmhagen B, Letnic M, Nelson MP, Schmitz OJ, Smith DW, Wallach AD, Wirsing AJ (2014) Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science 343:1241484CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Rooney N, McCann K, Gellner G, Moore JC (2006) Structural asymmetry and the stability of diverse food webs. Nature 442:265–269CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Rosenblatt A, Heithaus MR (2011) Does variation in movement tactics and trophic interactions among American alligators create habitat linkages? J Anim Ecol 80:786–798CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Rosenblatt A, Heithaus MR (2013) Slow isotope turnover rates and low discrimination values in the American alligator: implications for interpretation of ectotherm stable isotope data. Physiol Biochem Zool 86:137–148CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Rosenblatt A, Heithaus MR, Mazzotti FJ, Cherkiss M, Jeffery B (2013) Intra-population variation in activity ranges, diel patterns, movement rates, and habitat use of American alligators in a subtropical estuary. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 135:182–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Roughgarden J (1972) Evolution of niche width. Am Nat 106:683–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Roughgarden J (1979) Theory of population genetics and evolutionary ecology: an introduction. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Skulason S, Smith TB (1995) Resource polymorphisms in vertebrates. Trends Ecol Evol 10:366–370CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Temeles E, Pan IL, Brennan JL, Horwitt JN (2000) Evidence for ecological causation of sexual dimorphism in a hummingbird. Science 289:441–443CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Thiemann G, Iverson SJ, Stirling I, Obbard ME (2011) Individual patterns of prey selection and dietary specialization in an Arctic marine carnivore. Oikos 120:1469–1478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tinker M, Bentall G, Estes JA (2008) Food limitation leads to behavioral diversification and dietary specialization in sea otters. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:560–565CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Woo K, Elliott KH, Davidson M, Gaston AJ, Davoren GK (2008) Individual specialization in diet by a generalist marine predator reflects specialization in foraging behaviour. J Anim Ecol 77:1082–1091CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Woodroffe R, Lindsey PA, Romanach SS, Ranah SMKO (2007) African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) can subsist on small prey: implications for conservation. J Mammal 88:181–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adam E. Rosenblatt
    • 1
    Email author
  • James C. Nifong
    • 2
  • Michael R. Heithaus
    • 1
    • 3
  • Frank J. Mazzotti
    • 4
  • Michael S. Cherkiss
    • 5
  • Brian M. Jeffery
    • 4
  • Ruth M. Elsey
    • 6
  • Rachel A. Decker
    • 1
  • Brian R. Silliman
    • 2
  • Louis J. GuilletteJr.
    • 7
  • Russell H. Lowers
    • 8
  • Justin C. Larson
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biologica Sciences, Marine Sciences ProgramFlorida International UniversityNorth MiamiUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  3. 3.School of Environment, Arts, and SocietyFlorida International UniversityNorth MiamiUSA
  4. 4.Fort Lauderdale Research and Education CenterUniversity of FloridaDavieUSA
  5. 5.U.S. Geological Survey, Southeast Ecological Science CenterDavieUSA
  6. 6.Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Rockefeller Wildlife RefugeGrand ChenierUSA
  7. 7.Hollings Marine Laboratory, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyMedical University of South CarolinaCharlestonUSA
  8. 8.InoMedic Health Applications, Kennedy Space CenterCape CanaveralUSA

Personalised recommendations