↓ Skip to main content

The balancing act of foraging: mammalian herbivores trade-off multiple risks when selecting food patches

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
Title
The balancing act of foraging: mammalian herbivores trade-off multiple risks when selecting food patches
Published in
Oecologia, September 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00442-017-3957-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. J. Camp, L. A. Shipley, T. R. Johnson, P. J. Olsoy, J. S. Forbey, J. L. Rachlow, D. H. Thornton

Abstract

Animals face multiple risks while foraging such as the risk of acquiring inadequate energy from food and the risk of predation. We evaluated how two sympatric rabbits (pygmy rabbits, Brachylagus idahoensis, and mountain cottontail rabbits, Sylvilagus nuttallii) that differ in size, use of burrows, and habitat specialization in the sagebrush-steppe of western North America respond to different types and levels of perceived risks (i.e., fitness cost × probability of occurrence), including fiber and toxins in food, exposure to predation, and distance from a refuge. We measured food intake by the rabbits at paired food patches that varied in these risks and used the method of paired comparisons to create a relative ranking of habitat cues, which revealed an animal's perceived risk on a single scale representing an integrated response to a variety of risks. Pygmy rabbits perceived exposure to predation risk and distance from a burrow as riskier than did cottontails, whereas cottontails perceived dietary toxin as riskier. Pygmy rabbits consumed lower quality food, containing higher fiber or toxins, thereby avoided feeding in exposed patches or traveling far from their burrow to forage. In contrast, cottontails fed in exposed patches and traveled farther from the burrow to obtain higher quality food. We have shown how risks can be integrated into a single model that allows animals to reveal their perceptions of risks on a single scale that can be used to create a spatially explicit landscape of risk.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Other 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 19 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 42%
Environmental Science 11 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 25 32%
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 01 October 2017.
All research outputs
#18,572,844
of 23,003,906 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#3,664
of 4,236 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#246,007
of 321,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#54
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,003,906 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,236 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 321,103 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.