↓ Skip to main content

Human-resource subsidies alter the dietary preferences of a mammalian top predator

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
136 Mendeley
Title
Human-resource subsidies alter the dietary preferences of a mammalian top predator
Published in
Oecologia, February 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00442-014-2889-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas M. Newsome, Guy-Anthony Ballard, Peter J. S. Fleming, Remy van de Ven, Georgeanna L. Story, Christopher R. Dickman

Abstract

Resource subsidies to opportunistic predators may alter natural predator-prey relationships and, in turn, have implications for how these predators affect co-occurring prey. To explore this idea, we compared the prey available to and eaten by a top canid predator, the Australian dingo (Canis lupus dingo), in areas with and without human-provided food. Overall, small mammals formed the majority of dingo prey, followed by reptiles and then invertebrates. Where human-provided food resources were available, dingoes ate them; 17% of their diet comprised kitchen waste from a refuse facility. There was evidence of dietary preference for small mammals in areas where human-provided food was available. In more distant areas, by contrast, reptiles were the primary prey. The level of seasonal switching between small mammals and reptiles was also more pronounced in areas away from human-provided food. This reaffirmed concepts of prey switching but within a short, seasonal time frame. It also confirmed that the diet of dingoes is altered where human-provided food is available. We suggest that the availability of anthropogenic food to this species and other apex predators therefore has the potential to alter trophic cascades.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 2 1%
United States 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 131 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 18%
Student > Master 24 18%
Researcher 23 17%
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Student > Postgraduate 5 4%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 34 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 56 41%
Environmental Science 25 18%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 1%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 41 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 19 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,680,299
of 23,322,258 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#463
of 4,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,801
of 310,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#4
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,322,258 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,268 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 88% 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 310,062 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 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 93% of its contemporaries.