↓ Skip to main content

Searching for the True Diet of Marine Predators: Incorporating Bayesian Priors into Stable Isotope Mixing Models

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
170 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
Searching for the True Diet of Marine Predators: Incorporating Bayesian Priors into Stable Isotope Mixing Models
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0092665
Pubmed ID
Authors

André Chiaradia, Manuela G. Forero, Julie C. McInnes, Francisco Ramírez

Abstract

Reconstructing the diet of top marine predators is of great significance in several key areas of applied ecology, requiring accurate estimation of their true diet. However, from conventional stomach content analysis to recent stable isotope and DNA analyses, no one method is bias or error free. Here, we evaluated the accuracy of recent methods to estimate the actual proportion of a controlled diet fed to a top-predator seabird, the Little penguin (Eudyptula minor). We combined published DNA data of penguins scats with blood plasma δ(15)N and δ(13)C values to reconstruct the diet of individual penguins fed experimentally. Mismatch between controlled (true) ingested diet and dietary estimates obtained through the separately use of stable isotope and DNA data suggested some degree of differences in prey assimilation (stable isotope) and digestion rates (DNA analysis). In contrast, combined posterior isotope mixing model with DNA Bayesian priors provided the closest match to the true diet. We provided the first evidence suggesting that the combined use of these complementary techniques may provide better estimates of the actual diet of top marine predators- a powerful tool in applied ecology in the search for the true consumed diet.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 2 1%
Uruguay 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 162 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 25%
Student > Master 30 18%
Researcher 28 16%
Student > Bachelor 20 12%
Professor 7 4%
Other 22 13%
Unknown 20 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 89 52%
Environmental Science 33 19%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 7 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 2%
Other 6 4%
Unknown 29 17%
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 11 November 2016.
All research outputs
#12,897,392
of 22,751,628 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#100,642
of 194,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,552
of 224,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,608
of 5,394 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,751,628 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 194,172 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 224,281 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,394 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.