↓ Skip to main content

DNA left on browsed twigs uncovers bite-scale resource use patterns in European ungulates

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
DNA left on browsed twigs uncovers bite-scale resource use patterns in European ungulates
Published in
Oecologia, December 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00442-014-3196-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruth V. Nichols, Joris P. G. M. Cromsigt, Göran Spong

Abstract

Fine-scale resource use by large herbivores is often difficult to quantify directly. This is particularly true for browsing ungulates due to the challenges in observing shy subjects in forested environments of low visibility. As a consequence we know relatively little about resource use by diverse browsing ungulates. When browsing, ungulates leave behind saliva on the browsed twig that includes their DNA, which can be used to identify the species that was responsible for browsing the twig. We used this method, which we term "biteDNA", to study bite-scale browsing patterns in a temperate ungulate community. This approach provides a level of detail in browsing patterns across species that was previously very hard to attain. We found that all deer species largely overlapped in terms of the tree species they used. Moose browsed larger diameters than red deer and roe deer, but these latter two species did not differ. Moose browsed at higher heights than red deer, and red deer higher than roe deer. Although the deer species differed in mean browsing height, species were comparable in terms of their minimum browsing height of ~20 cm. This means that height and diameter ranges of the smaller species were found to be completely inside the ranges of the larger species. Hence, while moose may access exclusive food resources in terms of browse height and diameter, red and roe deer cannot.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hungary 1 1%
Unknown 72 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Student > Master 11 15%
Researcher 7 10%
Professor 2 3%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 18 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 36%
Environmental Science 15 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 10%
Engineering 2 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 3%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 19 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 May 2015.
All research outputs
#14,207,134
of 22,775,504 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#3,068
of 4,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,629
of 353,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#38
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,775,504 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,210 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 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 353,071 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.