↓ Skip to main content

Leaving safety to visit a feeding site: is it optimal to hesitate while exposed?

Overview of attention for article published in Royal Society Open Science, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
6 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Leaving safety to visit a feeding site: is it optimal to hesitate while exposed?
Published in
Royal Society Open Science, January 2017
DOI 10.1098/rsos.160910
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sean A. Rands

Abstract

Animals living in complex environments experience differing risks of predation depending upon their location within the landscape. An animal could reduce the risk it experiences by remaining in a refuge site, but it may need to emerge from its refuge and enter more dangerous sites for feeding and other activities. Here, I consider the actions of an animal choosing to travel a short distance between a safe refuge and a dangerous foraging site, such as a bird leaving cover to visit a feeder. Although much work has been conducted examining the choice between a refuge and a foraging site when faced with a trade-off between starvation and predation risk, the work presented here is the first to consider the travel behaviour between these locations. Using state-dependent stochastic dynamic programming, I illustrate that there are several forms of optimal behaviour that can emerge. In some situations, the animal should choose to travel without stopping between sites, but in other cases, it is optimal for the animal to travel hesitantly towards the food, and to stop its travel at a point before it reaches the refuge. I discuss how this hesitant 'dawdling' behaviour may be optimal, and suggest further work to test these predictions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 50%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 83%
Unspecified 1 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 14 January 2017.
All research outputs
#1,756,530
of 8,907,341 outputs
Outputs from Royal Society Open Science
#707
of 1,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,556
of 302,607 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Royal Society Open Science
#73
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,907,341 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,158 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 48.9. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 302,607 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.