↓ Skip to main content

Not eating like a pig: European wild boar wash their food

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
53 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
Not eating like a pig: European wild boar wash their food
Published in
Animal Cognition, July 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10071-015-0903-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Volker Sommer, Adriana Lowe, Tanja Dietrich

Abstract

Carrying food to water and either dunking or manipulating it before consumption has been observed in various taxa including birds, racoons and primates. Some animals seem to be simply moistening their food. However, true washing aims to remove unpleasant surface substrates such as grit and sand and requires a distinction between items that do and do not need cleaning as well as deliberate transportation of food to a water source. We provide the first evidence for food washing in suids, based on an incidental observation with follow-up experiments on European wild boar (Sus scrofa) kept at Basel Zoo, Switzerland. Here, all adult pigs and some juveniles of a newly formed group carried apple halves soiled with sand to the edge of a creek running through their enclosure where they put the fruits in the water and pushed them to and fro with their snouts before eating. Clean apple halves were never washed. This indicates that pigs can discriminate between soiled and unsoiled foods and that they are able to delay gratification for long enough to transport and wash the items. However, we were unable to ascertain to which degree individual and/or social learning brought this behaviour about.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 53 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 5%
Luxembourg 1 3%
Unknown 34 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 24%
Researcher 6 16%
Unspecified 5 14%
Student > Master 5 14%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Other 9 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 38%
Unspecified 6 16%
Psychology 5 14%
Environmental Science 3 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 5%
Other 7 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 74. 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 22 July 2019.
All research outputs
#237,650
of 13,736,382 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#70
of 1,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,840
of 234,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#4
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,736,382 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,007 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 234,575 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.