↓ 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 (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
26 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 96 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 20%
Researcher 15 16%
Unspecified 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Other 20 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 58 60%
Environmental Science 19 20%
Unspecified 17 18%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 1%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 1%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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
#1,106,306
of 13,778,239 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#175
of 2,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,655
of 272,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#10
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,778,239 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,958 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 272,847 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.