↓ Skip to main content

Ecological specialisation in habitat selection within a macropodid herbivore guild

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Ecological specialisation in habitat selection within a macropodid herbivore guild
Published in
Oecologia, November 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00442-015-3510-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Garnick, Julian Di Stefano, Mark A. Elgar, Graeme Coulson

Abstract

Specialist species show stronger resource selection, narrower niches and lower niche overlap than generalist species. We examined ecological specialisation with respect to habitat selection in a macropodid community comprising the western grey kangaroo Macropus fuliginosus, red-necked wallaby M. rufogriseus and swamp wallaby Wallabia bicolor in the Grampians National Park, Victoria, Australia. We used radio tracking to quantify habitat selection. We predicted that because the fitness benefits of generalisation and specialisation differ, there would be a mix of generalised and specialised species in our community. As all three macropodid species show marked sexual dimorphism, we also expected that they would show sex-based specialisation. Finally, because many large herbivores select different habitats for foraging and resting, we predicted that our species would specialise on a subset of their overall selected habitat based on activity period (diurnal or nocturnal). All three species specialised on the available resources to some degree. Western grey kangaroos were specialists, at least during the active period. Niche data for the two wallaby species were harder to interpret so we could not determine their degree of specialisation. Within species, we found no evidence of sex-based specialisation. However, we found clear evidence of specialisation by activity period in western grey kangaroos and red-necked wallabies, but not in swamp wallabies. The strength of behavioural decisions made during the active period in influencing specialisation points to the likelihood that bottom-up processes regulate this community.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 3%
South Africa 1 3%
Unknown 31 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 36%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 21%
Student > Master 5 15%
Other 2 6%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 3 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 52%
Environmental Science 11 33%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 3%
Unknown 3 9%
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 07 March 2016.
All research outputs
#18,445,779
of 22,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#3,653
of 4,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#279,652
of 387,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#45
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,854,458 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 4,221 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 387,550 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.