↓ Skip to main content

Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator?prey system

Overview of attention for article published in Ecology Letters, August 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Citations

dimensions_citation
200 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
535 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
Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator?prey system
Published in
Ecology Letters, August 2007
DOI 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01059.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew J. Kauffman, Nathan Varley, Douglas W. Smith, Daniel R. Stahler, Daniel R. MacNulty, Mark S. Boyce

Abstract

Because some native ungulates have lived without top predators for generations, it has been uncertain whether runaway predation would occur when predators are newly restored to these systems. We show that landscape features and vegetation, which influence predator detection and capture of prey, shape large-scale patterns of predation in a newly restored predator-prey system. We analysed the spatial distribution of wolf (Canis lupus) predation on elk (Cervus elaphus) on the Northern Range of Yellowstone National Park over 10 consecutive winters. The influence of wolf distribution on kill sites diminished over the course of this study, a result that was likely caused by territorial constraints on wolf distribution. In contrast, landscape factors strongly influenced kill sites, creating distinct hunting grounds and prey refugia. Elk in this newly restored predator-prey system should be able to mediate their risk of predation by movement and habitat selection across a heterogeneous risk landscape.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 535 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 11 2%
India 5 <1%
Canada 5 <1%
United Kingdom 4 <1%
Brazil 3 <1%
France 3 <1%
Mexico 2 <1%
South Africa 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Other 15 3%
Unknown 483 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 130 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 126 24%
Student > Master 93 17%
Student > Bachelor 34 6%
Other 30 6%
Other 86 16%
Unknown 36 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 325 61%
Environmental Science 123 23%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 13 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 1%
Social Sciences 4 <1%
Other 14 3%
Unknown 50 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 16 February 2014.
All research outputs
#3,036,748
of 12,352,699 outputs
Outputs from Ecology Letters
#1,294
of 1,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,938,343
of 11,749,285 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology Letters
#1,272
of 1,924 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,352,699 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,977 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 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 11,749,285 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,924 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.