How organisms gather and utilize information about their landscapes is central to understanding land-use patterns and population distributions. When such information originates beyond an individual's immediate vicinity, movement decisions require integrating information out to some perceptual range. Such nonlocal information, whether obtained visually, acoustically, or via chemosensation, provides a field of stimuli that guides movement. Classically, however, models have assumed movement based on purely local information (e.g., chemotaxis, step-selection functions). Here we explore how foragers can exploit nonlocal information to improve their success in dynamic landscapes. Using a continuous time/continuous space model in which we vary both random (diffusive) movement and resource-following (advective) movement, we characterize the optimal perceptual ranges for foragers in dynamic landscapes. Nonlocal information can be highly beneficial, increasing the spatiotemporal concentration of foragers on their resources up to twofold compared with movement based on purely local information. However, nonlocal information is most useful when foragers possess both high advective movement (allowing them to react to transient resources) and low diffusive movement (preventing them from drifting away from resource peaks). Nonlocal information is particularly beneficial in landscapes with sharp (rather than gradual) patch edges and in landscapes with highly transient resources.
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 03 June 2017.
All research outputs
#22,958,521
of 34,372,222 outputs
Outputs from The American Naturalist
#3,589
of 4,584 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,839
of 352,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The American Naturalist
#40
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,372,222 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,584 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 352,345 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
