↓ Skip to main content

Human Disturbance of an Avian Scavenging Guild

Overview of attention for article published in Ecological Applications, May 1991
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
Human Disturbance of an Avian Scavenging Guild
Published in
Ecological Applications, May 1991
DOI 10.2307/1941814
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan K Skagen, Richard L Knight, Gordon H Orians

Abstract

In order to investigate the effects of human activities on relationships within foraging guilds, we examined inacanus dynamics of eagles, crows, and gulls scavenging on spawned salmon in the Pacific Northwest. We examined several hypotheses that postulate the asymmetric foraging relationships of the three guild members and that reveal the influence of competition and facilitation in these relationships. Spatial and temporal patterns of resource use by the three primary guild members varied with the presence and absence of human activity at experimental feeding stations. At control (undisturbed) stations, eagles preferred to feed >100 m from vegetative cover, whereas gulls fed <50 m from cover. At experimental (disturbed) stations, eagles rarely fed, and feeding activity by gulls increased at both near and far stations. Crows often fed on alternate food sources in fields adjacent to the river, especially when salmon carcasses were scarce, whereas eagles and gulls rarely did so. We also examined if and how the behavior of single guild members changes in the presence or absence of other guild members. In the absence of eagles, gulls and crows preferred stations far from cover, numbers of both increased at feeding stations, birds were distributed nearer to carcasses, and they fed more. We emphasize that guild theory lends important insights to our understanding of the effects of human disturbance on wildlife communities.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 3%
Italy 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 68 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 18%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Other 5 7%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 13 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 41 57%
Environmental Science 18 25%
Social Sciences 1 1%
Unknown 12 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 May 2004.
All research outputs
#8,232,822
of 24,662,675 outputs
Outputs from Ecological Applications
#1,816
of 3,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,213
of 18,180 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecological Applications
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,662,675 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,332 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 18,180 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.