↓ Skip to main content

Foraging strategies of a generalist marine predator inhabiting a dynamic environment

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
Title
Foraging strategies of a generalist marine predator inhabiting a dynamic environment
Published in
Oecologia, September 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00442-016-3732-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

E. A. McHuron, P. W. Robinson, S. E. Simmons, C. E. Kuhn, M. Fowler, D. P. Costa

Abstract

Intraspecific variability is increasingly recognized as an important component of foraging behavior that can have implications for both population and community dynamics. We used an individual-level approach to describe the foraging behavior of an abundant, generalist predator that inhabits a dynamic marine ecosystem, focusing specifically on the different foraging strategies used by individuals in the same demographic group. We collected data on movements and diving behavior of adult female California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) across multiple foraging trips to sea. Sea lions (n = 35) used one of three foraging strategies that primarily differed in their oceanic zone and dive depth: a shallow, epipelagic strategy, a mixed epipelagic/benthic strategy, and a deep-diving strategy. Individuals varied in their degree of fidelity to a given strategy, with 66 % of sea lions using only one strategy on all or most of their foraging trips across the two-month tracking period. All foraging strategies were present in each of the sampling years, but there were inter-annual differences in the population-level importance of each strategy that may reflect changes in prey availability. Deep-diving sea lions traveled shorter distances and spent a greater proportion of time at the rookery than sea lions using the other two strategies, which may have energetic and reproductive implications. These results highlight the importance of an individual-based approach in describing the foraging behavior of female California sea lions and understanding how they respond to the seasonal and annual changes in prey availability that characterize the California Current System.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 20%
Student > Master 13 17%
Researcher 12 16%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Other 6 8%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 13 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 39 51%
Environmental Science 11 14%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 3%
Chemistry 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 13 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 November 2016.
All research outputs
#13,479,773
of 22,889,074 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#2,932
of 4,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,030
of 320,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#28
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,889,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,225 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,232 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.