↓ Skip to main content

Association with humans and seasonality interact to reverse predictions for animal space use

Overview of attention for article published in Movement Ecology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Association with humans and seasonality interact to reverse predictions for animal space use
Published in
Movement Ecology, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40462-018-0123-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter N. Laver, Kathleen A. Alexander

Abstract

Variation in animal space use reflects fitness trade-offs associated with ecological constraints. Associated theories such as the metabolic theory of ecology and the resource dispersion hypothesis generate predictions about what drives variation in animal space use. But, metabolic theory is usually tested in macro-ecological studies and is seldom invoked explicitly in within-species studies. Full evaluation of the resource dispersion hypothesis requires testing in more species. Neither have been evaluated in the context of anthropogenic landscape change. In this study, we used data for banded mongooses (Mungos mungo) in northeastern Botswana, along a gradient of association with humans, to test for effects of space use drivers predicted by these theories. We used Bayesian parameter estimation and inference from linear models to test for seasonal differences in space use metrics and to model seasonal effects of space use drivers. Results suggest that space use is strongly associated with variation in the level of overlap that mongoose groups have with humans. Seasonality influences this association, reversing seasonal space use predictions historically-accepted by ecologists. We found support for predictions of the metabolic theory when moderated by seasonality, by association with humans and by their interaction. Space use of mongooses living in association with humans was more concentrated in the dry season than the wet season, when historically-accepted ecological theory predicted more dispersed space use. Resource richness factors such as building density were associated with space use only during the dry season. We found negligible support for predictions of the resource dispersion hypothesis in general or for metabolic theory where seasonality and association with humans were not included. For mongooses living in association with humans, space use was not associated with patch dispersion or group size over both seasons. In our study, living in association with humans influenced space use patterns that diverged from historically-accepted predictions. There is growing need to explicitly incorporate human-animal interactions into ecological theory and research. Our results and methodology may contribute to understanding effects of anthropogenic landscape change on wildlife populations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 25%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Student > Master 4 8%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 27%
Environmental Science 8 16%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 6%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 16 31%
Attention Score in Context

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 22 September 2018.
All research outputs
#13,593,228
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from Movement Ecology
#235
of 316 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,280
of 326,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Movement Ecology
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 316 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.3. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 326,559 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.