↓ Skip to main content

Behavioral mechanisms leading to improved fitness in a subsidized predator

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
Behavioral mechanisms leading to improved fitness in a subsidized predator
Published in
Oecologia, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00442-017-3898-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elena H. West, M. Zachariah Peery

Abstract

General mechanisms underlying the distribution and fitness of synanthropic predators in human-influenced landscapes remain unclear. Under the consumer resource-matching hypothesis, synanthropes are expected to distribute themselves among habitats according to resource availability, such that densities are greater in human-subsidized habitats, but mean individual fitness is equal among habitats because of negative density dependence. However, "under-matching" to human food resources can occur, because dominant individuals exclude subordinates from subsidized habitats and realize relatively high fitness. We integrated physiological, behavioral, and demographic information to test resource-matching hypotheses in Steller's jays (Cyanocitta stelleri), a synanthropic nest predator, to understand how behavior and social systems can influence how synanthropes respond to food subsidies. Jays consumed more human foods at subsidized (park campground) sites than jays at unsubsidized (interior forest) sites based on stable isotope analyses. Jays that occurred at higher densities were in better body condition (based on feather growth bars and lipid analyses), and had greater reproductive output at subsidized than unsubsidized sites. Jays with breeding territories in subsidized sites maintained relatively small home ranges that overlapped with multiple conspecifics, and exhibited a social system where dominant individuals typically won contests over food. Thus, jays appeared to be under-matched to prevalent resource subsidies despite high densities and behaviors expected to lead to resource matching. Our results also indicate that local resource subsidies within protected areas can result in source habitats for synanthropes, potentially impacting sensitive species over broader spatial scales.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 29%
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Other 3 7%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 9 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 40%
Environmental Science 10 24%
Psychology 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Engineering 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 12 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 September 2019.
All research outputs
#19,037,837
of 24,246,771 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#3,711
of 4,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,750
of 316,023 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#39
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,246,771 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,390 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 316,023 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.