↓ Skip to main content

Spatiotemporal heterogeneity in prey abundance and vulnerability shapes the foraging tactics of an omnivore

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Animal Ecology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Spatiotemporal heterogeneity in prey abundance and vulnerability shapes the foraging tactics of an omnivore
Published in
Journal of Animal Ecology, March 2018
DOI 10.1111/1365-2656.12810
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nathaniel D. Rayl, Guillaume Bastille-Rousseau, John F. Organ, Matthew A. Mumma, Shane P. Mahoney, Colleen E. Soulliere, Keith P. Lewis, Robert D. Otto, Dennis L. Murray, Lisette P. Waits, Todd K. Fuller

Abstract

1.Prey abundance and prey vulnerability vary across space and time, but we know little about how they mediate predator-prey interactions and predator foraging tactics. To evaluate the interplay between prey abundance, prey vulnerability, and predator space use, we examined patterns of black bear (Ursus americanus) predation of caribou (Rangifer tarandus) neonates in Newfoundland, Canada using data from 317 collared individuals (9 bears, 34 adult female caribou, 274 caribou calves). 2.During the caribou calving season, we predicted that landscape features would influence calf vulnerability to bear predation, and that bears would actively hunt calves by selecting areas associated with increased calf vulnerability. Further, we hypothesized that bears would dynamically adjust their foraging tactics in response to spatiotemporal changes in calf abundance and vulnerability (collectively, calf availability). Accordingly, we expected bears to actively hunt calves when they were most abundant and vulnerable, but switch to foraging on other resources as calf availability declined. 3.As predicted, landscape heterogeneity influenced risk of mortality, and bears displayed the strongest selection for areas where they were most likely to kill calves, which suggested they were actively hunting caribou. Initially, the per-capita rate at which bears killed calves followed a type-I functional response, but as the calving season progressed and calf vulnerability declined, kill rates dissociated from calf abundance. In support of our hypothesis, bears adjusted their foraging tactics when they were less efficient at catching calves, highlighting the influence that predation phenology may have on predator space use. Contrary to our expectations, however, bears appeared to continue to hunt caribou as calf availability declined, but switched from a tactic of selecting areas of increased calf vulnerability to a tactic that maximized encounter rates with calves. 4.Our results reveal that generalist predators can dynamically adjust their foraging tactics over short time scales in response to changing prey abundance and vulnerability. Further, they demonstrate the utility of integrating temporal dynamics of prey availability into investigations of predator-prey interactions, and move towards a mechanistic understanding of the dynamic foraging tactics of a large omnivore. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 22%
Researcher 11 20%
Unspecified 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 6 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 34 63%
Environmental Science 10 19%
Unspecified 9 17%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 2%

Attention Score in Context

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 16 April 2018.
All research outputs
#6,934,964
of 12,808,036 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Animal Ecology
#1,415
of 1,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,644
of 267,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Animal Ecology
#21
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,808,036 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.7. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 267,807 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.