↓ Skip to main content

Interspecific differences in the visual system and scanning behavior of three forest passerines that form heterospecific flocks

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Comparative Physiology A, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
Interspecific differences in the visual system and scanning behavior of three forest passerines that form heterospecific flocks
Published in
Journal of Comparative Physiology A, February 2013
DOI 10.1007/s00359-012-0790-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bret A. Moore, Megan Doppler, Jordan E. Young, Esteban Fernández-Juricic

Abstract

Little is known as to how visual systems and visual behaviors vary within guilds in which species share the same micro-habitat types but use different foraging tactics. We studied different dimensions of the visual system and scanning behavior of Carolina chickadees, tufted titmice, and white-breasted nuthatches, which are tree foragers that form heterospecific flocks during the winter. All species had centro-temporally located foveae that project into the frontal part of the lateral visual field. Visual acuity was the highest in nuthatches, intermediate in titmice, and the lowest in chickadees. Chickadees and titmice had relatively wide binocular fields with a high degree of eye movement right above their short bills probably to converge their eyes while searching for food. Nuthatches had narrower binocular fields with a high degree of eye movement below their bills probably to orient the fovea toward the trunk while searching for food. Chickadees and titmice had higher scanning (e.g., head movement) rates than nuthatches probably due to their wider blind areas that limit visual coverage. The visual systems of these three species seem tuned to the visual challenges posed by the different foraging and scanning strategies that facilitate the partitioning of resources within this guild.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Chile 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 45 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Student > Master 7 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 13 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 47%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 14 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 February 2013.
All research outputs
#19,221,261
of 23,815,455 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#1,225
of 1,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,349
of 292,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,815,455 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,450 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 292,721 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.