↓ Skip to main content

The partitioning of food resources between two rodents in the subtropical region of southern Brazil

Overview of attention for article published in Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
The partitioning of food resources between two rodents in the subtropical region of southern Brazil
Published in
Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, March 2017
DOI 10.1590/0001-3765201720160445
Pubmed ID
Authors

FÁBIO P. ESPINELLI, FABIANO CORRÊA, ELTON P. COLARES, IONI G. COLARES

Abstract

The capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris) and nutria (Myocastor coypus) are herbivorous semi-aquatic rodents. Although these rodents occur in sympatry in southern South America, little is known about how the two species interact in relationship to food resources. In this context, the aim of this study was to analyze the food resource overlap, the feeding strategy and the diversity of the diet of capybaras and nutria. A micro-histological analysis of feces was used to study the diets. A total of 48 plant species belonging to 10 families were identified in the diet of H. hydrochaeris, and a total of 49 species belonging to 14 families were identified in the diet of M. coypus. According to the Amundsen graphical method, both rodents adopted a specialized strategy for feeding on Poaceae and a generalized strategy for other families. The results of a multivariate analysis of the dietary data showed significant differences between the two rodent species and among the seasons. These differences between diets may be related to the different proportions of each food item eaten. However, the dietary overlap between the two rodents in the Taim wetland was high, suggesting that partitioning of other resources ensured the coexistence of the species.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 19%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Researcher 2 6%
Professor 2 6%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 13 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 16%
Environmental Science 4 13%
Psychology 2 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 14 45%
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 13 May 2017.
All research outputs
#23,320,957
of 25,988,468 outputs
Outputs from Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências
#197
of 217 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#288,737
of 327,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,988,468 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 217 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 327,827 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them