↓ Skip to main content

Advancing the match-mismatch framework for large herbivores in the Arctic: Evaluating the evidence for a trophic mismatch in caribou

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Advancing the match-mismatch framework for large herbivores in the Arctic: Evaluating the evidence for a trophic mismatch in caribou
Published in
PLOS ONE, February 2017
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0171807
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Gustine, Perry Barboza, Layne Adams, Brad Griffith, Raymond Cameron, Kenneth Whitten

Abstract

Climate-induced shifts in plant phenology may adversely affect animals that cannot or do not shift the timing of their reproductive cycle. The realized effect of potential trophic "mismatches" between a consumer and its food varies with the degree to which species rely on dietary income and stored capital. Large Arctic herbivores rely heavily on maternal capital to reproduce and give birth near the onset of the growing season but are they vulnerable to trophic mismatch? We evaluated the long-term changes in the temperatures and characteristics of the growing seasons (1970-2013), and compared growing conditions and dynamics of forage quality for caribou at peak parturition, peak lactation, and peak forage biomass, and plant senescence between two distinct time periods over 36 years (1977 and 2011-13). Despite advanced thaw dates (7-12 days earlier), increased growing season lengths (15-21 days longer), and consistent parturition dates, we found no decline in forage quality and therefore no evidence within this dataset for a trophic mismatch at peak parturition or peak lactation from 1977 to 2011-13. In Arctic ungulates that use stored capital for reproduction, reproductive demands are largely met by body stores deposited in the previous summer and autumn, which reduces potential adverse effects of any mismatch between food availability and timing of parturition. Climate-induced effects on forages growing in the summer and autumn ranges, however, do correspond with the demands of female caribou and their offspring to gain mass for the next reproductive cycle and winter. Therefore, we suggest the window of time to examine the match-mismatch framework in Arctic ungulates is not at parturition but in late summer-autumn, where the multiplier effects of small changes in forage quality are amplified by forage abundance, peak forage intake, and resultant mass gains in mother-offspring pairs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 1%
Unknown 98 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 18%
Researcher 14 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Other 6 6%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 23 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 34 34%
Environmental Science 18 18%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 27 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 64. 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 23 May 2017.
All research outputs
#568,442
of 22,957,478 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#8,052
of 195,702 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,274
of 311,192 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#214
of 4,487 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,957,478 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 195,702 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
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 311,192 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,487 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.