↓ Skip to main content

Testing the risk of predation hypothesis: the influence of recolonizing wolves on habitat use by moose

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 Mendeley
Title
Testing the risk of predation hypothesis: the influence of recolonizing wolves on habitat use by moose
Published in
Oecologia, July 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00442-014-3004-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kerry L. Nicholson, Cyril Milleret, Johan Månsson, Håkan Sand

Abstract

Considered as absent throughout Scandinavia for >100 years, wolves (Canis lupus) have recently naturally recolonized south-central Sweden. This recolonization has provided an opportunity to study behavioral responses of moose (Alces alces) to wolves. We used satellite telemetry locations from collared moose and wolves to determine whether moose habitat use was affected by predation risk based on wolf use distributions. Moose habitat use was influenced by reproductive status and time of day and showed a different selection pattern between winter and summer, but there was weak evidence that moose habitat use depended on predation risk. The seemingly weak response may have several underlying explanations that are not mutually exclusive from the long term absence of non-human predation pressure: intensive harvest by humans during the last century is more important than wolf predation as an influence on moose behavior; moose have not adapted to recolonizing wolves; and responses may include other behavioral adaptations or occur at finer temporal and spatial levels than investigated.

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 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 123 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 20%
Researcher 23 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 17%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Other 6 5%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 24 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 64 50%
Environmental Science 25 20%
Unspecified 3 2%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 <1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 31 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 21 August 2019.
All research outputs
#7,009,134
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#1,528
of 5,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,562
of 244,771 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#13
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,046 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 244,771 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 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 73% of its contemporaries.