↓ Skip to main content

Using eDNA to experimentally test ungulate browsing preferences

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
Title
Using eDNA to experimentally test ungulate browsing preferences
Published in
SpringerPlus, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40064-015-1285-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruth V. Nichols, Joris P. G. M. Cromsigt, Göran Spong

Abstract

Large herbivores may affect ecosystem processes and states, but such effects can be difficult to quantify, especially within multispecies assemblages. To better understand such processes and improve our predictive ability of systems undergoing change, herbivore diets can be studied using controlled feeding trials (or cafeteria tests). With some wildlife, such as large herbivores, it is impractical to empirically verify these findings, because it requires visually observing animals in forested environments, which can disturb them from their natural behaviors. Yet, in field-based cafeteria trials it is nearly impossible to differentiate selection between herbivore species that forage on similar plants and make very similar bite marks. However, during browsing ungulates leave saliva residue which includes some buccal cells and DNA that can be extracted for species identification. Here we used a newly developed eDNA-based method (biteDNA) to test the browsing preferences of four sympatric ungulate species in the wild. Overall, food preferences varied between species, but all species strongly preferred deciduous over coniferous species. Our method allows the study of plant-animal interactions in multispecies assemblages at very fine detail.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 26%
Researcher 12 18%
Student > Bachelor 10 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 11%
Student > Master 6 9%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 10 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 44%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 18%
Environmental Science 4 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 13 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 18 December 2020.
All research outputs
#6,799,073
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#420
of 1,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,016
of 267,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#32
of 120 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 267,231 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 120 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.