↓ Skip to main content

Assessing personality in San Joaquin kit fox in situ: efficacy of field-based experimental methods and implications for conservation management

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Ethology, September 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 (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Assessing personality in San Joaquin kit fox in situ: efficacy of field-based experimental methods and implications for conservation management
Published in
Journal of Ethology, September 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10164-017-0525-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samantha Bremner-Harrison, Brian L. Cypher, Christine Van Horn Job, Stephen W. R. Harrison

Abstract

Utilisation of animal personality has potential benefit for conservation management. Due to logistics of robust behavioural evaluation in situ, the majority of studies on wild animals involve taking animals into captivity for testing, potentially compromising results. Three in situ tests for evaluation of boldness in San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) were developed (ENOT: extended novel object test; RNOT: rapid novel object test; TH: trap/handling test). Each test successfully identified variation in boldness within its target age class(es). The TH test was suitable for use across all age classes. Tests were assessed for in situ suitability and for quantity/quality of data yielded. ENOT was rated as requiring high levels of time, cost and labour with greater likelihood of failure. However, it was rated highly for data quantity/quality. The TH test was rated as requiring little time, labour and cost, but yielding lower quality data. RNOT was rated in the middle. Each test had merit and could be adapted to suit project or species constraints. We recommend field-based evaluation of personality, reducing removal of animals from the wild and facilitating routine incorporation of personality assessment into conservation projects.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 34%
Student > Bachelor 5 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 14%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Other 4 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 52%
Environmental Science 6 21%
Unspecified 5 17%
Psychology 2 7%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 10 March 2018.
All research outputs
#2,848,228
of 11,717,557 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ethology
#63
of 246 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,625
of 264,563 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ethology
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,717,557 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 246 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 264,563 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.