↓ Skip to main content

Aggression, interference, and the functional response of coral-feeding butterflyfishes

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, July 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 (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Aggression, interference, and the functional response of coral-feeding butterflyfishes
Published in
Oecologia, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00442-017-3902-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shane A. Blowes, Morgan S. Pratchett, Sean R. Connolly

Abstract

Functional responses describing how foraging rates change with respect to resource density are central to our understanding of interspecific interactions. Competitive interactions are an important determinant of foraging rates; however, the relationship between the exploitation and interference components of competition has received little empirical or theoretical consideration. Moreover, little is known about the relationship between aggressive behavioural interactions and interference competition. Using a natural gradient of consumer and resource densities, we empirically examine how aggressiveness relates to consumer-consumer encounter rates and foraging for four species of Chaetodon reef fish spanning a range of dietary niche breadths. The probability of aggression was most strongly associated with both total consumer and resource densities. In contrast, total encounter rates were best predicted by conspecific consumer density, and were highest for the most specialised consumer (Chaetodon trifascialis), not the most aggressive (Chaetodon baronessa). The most specialised consumer, not the most aggressive, also exhibited the largest reduction in foraging rates with increasing consumer density. Our results support the idea of a positive link between the exploitation and interference components of competition for the most specialised consumer. Moreover, our results caution against inferring the presence of ecological interactions (competition) from observations of behaviour (aggression and agonism) alone.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 18%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 42%
Environmental Science 8 24%
Mathematics 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Chemistry 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 July 2017.
All research outputs
#5,525,689
of 22,985,065 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#1,102
of 4,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,883
of 314,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#13
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,985,065 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,235 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 314,066 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.