↓ Skip to main content

Constraints on herbivory by grizzly bears

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, June 2001
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
125 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
242 Mendeley
Title
Constraints on herbivory by grizzly bears
Published in
Oecologia, June 2001
DOI 10.1007/s004420100637
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karyn D. Rode, Charles T. Robbins, Lisa A. Shipley

Abstract

Although well known as carnivores and not capable of digesting plant fiber, grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) consume over 200 species of plants and are entirely vegetarian in some ecosystems. Even in ecosystems with abundant meat resources, green vegetation can be an important seasonal food resource. Therefore, we examined the morphological, physiological, and environmental constraints that determine the nutritional value of herbaceous vegetation to grizzly bears. Short-term, board foraging trials were used with captive grizzly bears to determine constraints on intake rate including bite size, bite rate, bear size, plant species, plant height, and plant distribution. Feeding trials were conducted to determine the effect of protein level (12-35%) and digestible dry matter intake on weight gain. Finally, maximum daily intake, daily foraging time, and weight change were measured for captive bears foraging on highly abundant and nutritious forbs and grasses during 12-day trials. Intake during short-term board trials overestimated the intake of freely foraging bears from two- to seven-fold depending on bear size. Because of their relatively larger bite sizes, smaller absolute energy requirements, and relatively larger intake capacity, smaller bears (<120 kg) made greater weight gains than very large bears on herbaceous vegetation. Smaller bears with ad libitum access to palatable, nutritious forbs gained weight at rates equal to wild bears. However, depending upon plant characteristics, bite sizes and available daily foraging time increasingly prevented large bears (>120 kg) from gaining weight on herbaceous vegetation. Both captive and wild bears select forbs over grasses at similar growth stages because forbs are generally higher in protein and more digestible than grasses. Therefore, the nutritional well-being of wild grizzly bears could be improved in areas where bears are largely herbivorous and, thus, relatively small by purposefully managing for nutritious forbs.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 242 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 4 2%
United States 4 2%
Brazil 3 1%
India 3 1%
United Kingdom 3 1%
Czechia 2 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
United Arab Emirates 1 <1%
Other 5 2%
Unknown 215 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 52 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 18%
Student > Master 42 17%
Student > Bachelor 24 10%
Other 13 5%
Other 34 14%
Unknown 34 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 128 53%
Environmental Science 50 21%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 6 2%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 2%
Other 10 4%
Unknown 37 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 05 May 2020.
All research outputs
#7,495,032
of 22,912,409 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#1,680
of 4,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,013
of 39,747 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#6
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,912,409 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 39,747 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.