↓ Skip to main content

Fear, foraging and olfaction: how mesopredators avoid costly interactions with apex predators

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
23 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
172 Mendeley
Title
Fear, foraging and olfaction: how mesopredators avoid costly interactions with apex predators
Published in
Oecologia, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00442-018-4133-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter M. Haswell, Katherine A. Jones, Josip Kusak, Matt W. Hayward

Abstract

Where direct killing is rare and niche overlap low, sympatric carnivores may appear to coexist without conflict. Interference interactions, harassment and injury from larger carnivores may still pose a risk to smaller mesopredators. Foraging theory suggests that animals should adjust their behaviour accordingly to optimise foraging efficiency and overall fitness, trading off harvest rate with costs to fitness. The foraging behaviour of red foxes, Vulpes vulpes, was studied with automated cameras and a repeated measures giving-up density (GUD) experiment where olfactory risk cues were manipulated. In Plitvice Lakes National Park, Croatia, red foxes increased GUDs by 34% and quitting harvest rates by 29% in response to wolf urine. In addition to leaving more food behind, foxes also responded to wolf urine by spending less time visiting food patches each day and altering their behaviour in order to compensate for the increased risk when foraging from patches. Thus, red foxes utilised olfaction to assess risk and experienced foraging costs due to the presence of a cue from gray wolves, Canis lupus. This study identifies behavioural mechanisms which may enable competing predators to coexist, and highlights the potential for additional ecosystem service pathways arising from the behaviour of large carnivores. Given the vulnerability of large carnivores to anthropogenic disturbance, a growing human population and intensifying resource consumption, it becomes increasingly important to understand ecological processes so that land can be managed appropriately.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 172 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 172 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 19%
Student > Bachelor 18 10%
Researcher 15 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 4%
Other 21 12%
Unknown 39 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 81 47%
Environmental Science 37 22%
Arts and Humanities 1 <1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 <1%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 <1%
Other 4 2%
Unknown 47 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 03 July 2018.
All research outputs
#2,694,478
of 25,002,204 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#420
of 4,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,530
of 333,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#16
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,002,204 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,430 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 333,578 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.