↓ Skip to main content

Effects of habitat features on size-biased predation on salmon by bears

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Effects of habitat features on size-biased predation on salmon by bears
Published in
Oecologia, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00442-017-3845-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luke C. Andersson, John D. Reynolds

Abstract

Predators can drive trait divergence among populations of prey by imposing differential selection on prey traits. Habitat characteristics can mediate predator selectivity by providing refuge for prey. We quantified the effects of stream characteristics on biases in the sizes of spawning salmon caught by bears (Ursus arctos and U. americanus) on the central coast of British Columbia, Canada by measuring size-biased predation on spawning chum (Oncorhynchus keta) and pink (O. gorbuscha) salmon in 12 streams with varying habitat characteristics. We tested the hypotheses that bears would catch larger than average salmon (size-biased predation) and that this bias toward larger fish would be higher in streams that provide less protection to spawning salmon from predation (e.g., less pools, wood, undercut banks). We then we tested for how such size biases in turn translate into differences among populations in the sizes of the fish. Bears caught larger-than-average salmon as the spawning season progressed and as predicted, this was most pronounced in streams with fewer refugia for the fish (i.e., wood and undercut banks). Salmon were marginally smaller in streams with more pronounced size-biased predation but this predictor was less reliable than physical characteristics of streams, with larger fish in wider, deeper streams. These results support the hypothesis that selective forces imposed by predators can be mediated by habitat characteristics, with potential consequences for physical traits of prey.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 28 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 17%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Other 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 8 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 38%
Environmental Science 6 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 8 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 02 May 2017.
All research outputs
#4,122,059
of 24,627,841 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#757
of 4,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,530
of 315,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#14
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,627,841 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,411 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 315,852 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.