↓ Skip to main content

Body size and predatory performance in wolves: is bigger better?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Animal Ecology, March 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
328 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Body size and predatory performance in wolves: is bigger better?
Published in
Journal of Animal Ecology, March 2009
DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01517.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel R. MacNulty, Douglas W. Smith, L. David Mech, Lynn E. Eberly

Abstract

1. Large body size hinders locomotor performance in ways that may lead to trade-offs in predator foraging ability that limit the net predatory benefit of larger size. For example, size-related improvements in handling prey may come at the expense of pursuing prey and thus negate any enhancement in overall predatory performance due to increasing size. 2. This hypothesis was tested with longitudinal data from repeated observations of 94 individually known wolves (Canis lupus) hunting elk (Cervus elaphus) in Yellowstone National Park, USA. Wolf size was estimated from an individually based sex-specific growth model derived from body mass measurements of 304 wolves. 3. Larger size granted individual wolves a net predatory advantage despite substantial variation in its effect on the performance of different predatory tasks; larger size improved performance of a strength-related task (grappling and subduing elk) but failed to improve performance of a locomotor-related task (selecting an elk from a group) for wolves > 39 kg. 4. Sexual dimorphism in wolf size also explained why males outperformed females in each of the three tasks considered (attacking, selecting, and killing). 5. These findings support the generalization that bigger predators are overall better hunters, but they also indicate that increasing size ultimately limits elements of predatory behaviour that require superior locomotor performance. We argue that this could potentially narrow the dietary niche of larger carnivores as well as limit the evolution of larger size if prey are substantially more difficult to pursue than to handle.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 328 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 2%
Brazil 6 2%
France 4 1%
India 3 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Czechia 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
United Arab Emirates 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Other 7 2%
Unknown 293 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 69 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 67 20%
Student > Master 51 16%
Student > Bachelor 24 7%
Other 22 7%
Other 54 16%
Unknown 41 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 195 59%
Environmental Science 57 17%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 6 2%
Social Sciences 4 1%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 <1%
Other 11 3%
Unknown 52 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 04 March 2012.
All research outputs
#14,119,184
of 24,717,821 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Animal Ecology
#2,538
of 3,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,451
of 101,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Animal Ecology
#8
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,717,821 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,167 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.4. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 101,304 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.