A large data set of new and previously published measurements of δ13C values derived from tooth enamel (n = 223, of which 93 are new) are compiled to explore patterns of foraging area preferences of Late Cretaceous mosasaurid squamates over evolutionary time scales (~93–66 Ma). Our results indicate that small-bodied halisaurines are restricted to a relatively nearshore range, overlapping the lower end of the range of plioplatecarpines and some mosasaurine taxa. Most moderately sized plioplatecarpines occupy a relatively narrow foraging area in much of the nearshore and proximal offshore marine foraging area for the majority of their existence. Tylosaurines exhibit a greater offshore marine range than plioplatecarpines, consistent with their large body size and the robustness of their feeding apparatus. The largest tylosaurine taxa are replaced by Mosasaurus in the Late Campanian–Maastrichtian in the offshore foraging range. Mosasaurine taxa are found to occupy the broadest range of foraging areas, but their ranges are taxonomically segregated, consistent with adult body size and the diversity of feeding adaptations such as tooth morphologies and skull architecture seen in that subfamily. Where foraging areas of multiple taxa overlap, differences are typically in tooth form, reflecting prey preference or feeding niche. Foraging area occupation by multiple taxa with similar tooth forms suggests that other factors such as body size and prey acquisition style may have allowed for the finer partitioning of resources. Deep diving and long submergence may have also contributed to the depleted signals recovered for some of the large-bodied durophages and the largest of the macrophagous apex predators.

, , , , , , ,
doi.org/10.3390/d17040291
Diversity

Released under the CC-BY 4.0 ("Attribution 4.0 International") License

Staff publications

Polcyn, Michael J., Robbins, John A., Schulp, A., Lindgren, Johan, & Jacobs, Louis L. (2025). The Evolution of Mosasaurid foraging behavior through the lens of stable carbon isotopes. Diversity, 17(4), 291–291. doi:10.3390/d17040291