↓ Skip to main content

Come dine with me: food-associated social signalling in wild bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus)

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, February 2015
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 (81st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 Mendeley
Title
Come dine with me: food-associated social signalling in wild bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus)
Published in
Animal Cognition, February 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10071-015-0851-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephanie L. King, Vincent M. Janik

Abstract

Food-related signalling is widespread in the animal kingdom with some food-associated vocalizations considered functionally referential. Food calls can, however, vary greatly in the type of information they convey. Thus, there are a multitude of purposes for which food calls are used, including social recruitment, caller spacing, the indication of type, quantity, quality, divisibility of food, the caller's hunger level and even as tools to manipulate prey behaviour. Yet little work has focused on the social aspect of food calling in animals. We investigated the association of social signals in wild bottlenose dolphins with foraging behaviour where context-specific food-associated calls are commonly produced. Our data showed that specific social signals were significantly correlated with food call production and these calls rarely occurred in the absence of food calls. We suggest that animals are sharing additional information on the food patch itself with their social affiliates.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 137 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 19%
Student > Master 25 18%
Student > Bachelor 23 16%
Unspecified 10 7%
Other 27 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 90 63%
Environmental Science 22 15%
Unspecified 14 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 8 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 23 April 2019.
All research outputs
#2,175,897
of 13,647,261 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#409
of 1,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,256
of 215,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#8
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,647,261 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 215,261 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 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 52% of its contemporaries.