↓ Skip to main content

To Eat or Not to Eat? Debris Selectivity by Marine Turtles

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
19 news outlets
blogs
6 blogs
twitter
227 X users
facebook
18 Facebook pages
googleplus
3 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
131 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
316 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
To Eat or Not to Eat? Debris Selectivity by Marine Turtles
Published in
PLOS ONE, July 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0040884
Pubmed ID
Authors

Qamar Schuyler, Britta Denise Hardesty, Chris Wilcox, Kathy Townsend

Abstract

Marine debris is a growing problem for wildlife, and has been documented to affect more than 267 species worldwide. We investigated the prevalence of marine debris ingestion in 115 sea turtles stranded in Queensland between 2006-2011, and assessed how the ingestion rates differ between species (Eretmochelys imbricata vs. Chelonia mydas) and by turtle size class (smaller oceanic feeders vs. larger benthic feeders). Concurrently, we conducted 25 beach surveys to estimate the composition of the debris present in the marine environment. Based on this proxy measurement of debris availability, we modeled turtles' debris preferences (color and type) using a resource selection function, a method traditionally used for habitat and food selection. We found no significant difference in the overall probability of ingesting debris between the two species studied, both of which have similar life histories. Curved carapace length, however, was inversely correlated with the probability of ingesting debris; 54.5% of pelagic sized turtles had ingested debris, whereas only 25% of benthic feeding turtles were found with debris in their gastrointestinal system. Benthic and pelagic sized turtles also exhibited different selectivity ratios for debris ingestion. Benthic phase turtles had a strong selectivity for soft, clear plastic, lending support to the hypothesis that sea turtles ingest debris because it resembles natural prey items such as jellyfish. Pelagic turtles were much less selective in their feeding, though they showed a trend towards selectivity for rubber items such as balloons. Most ingested items were plastic and were positively buoyant. This study highlights the need to address increasing amounts of plastic in the marine environment, and provides evidence for the disproportionate ingestion of balloons by marine turtles.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 227 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 316 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 1%
Brazil 3 <1%
Mozambique 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Uruguay 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 300 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 67 21%
Researcher 44 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 13%
Student > Master 41 13%
Other 19 6%
Other 35 11%
Unknown 69 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 91 29%
Environmental Science 84 27%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 25 8%
Chemistry 7 2%
Social Sciences 6 2%
Other 21 7%
Unknown 82 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 372. 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 05 September 2020.
All research outputs
#85,717
of 25,703,943 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#1,407
of 223,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#306
of 178,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#12
of 4,015 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,703,943 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 223,999 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
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 178,718 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,015 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.