| Title |
Homing pigeons (Columba livia f. domestica) can use magnetic cues for locating food
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Science of Nature, May 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00114-007-0259-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peter Thalau, Elke Holtkamp-Rötzler, Gerta Fleissner, Wolfgang Wiltschko |
| Abstract |
An experimental group of homing pigeons (Columba livia f. domestica) learned to associate food with a magnetic anomaly produced by bar magnets that were fixed to the bowl in which they received their daily food ration in their home loft; the control group lacked this experience. Both groups were trained to search for two hidden food depots in a rectangular sand-filled arena without obvious visual cues; for the experimental birds, these depots were also marked with three 1.15 x 10(6) muT bar magnets. During the tests, there were two food depots, one marked with the magnets, the other unmarked; their position within the arena was changed from test to test. The experimental birds searched within 10 cm of the magnetically marked depot in 49% of the test sessions, whereas the control birds searched there in only 11% of the sessions. Both groups searched near the control depot in 11 and 13% of the sessions, respectively. The significant preference of the magnetically marked food depot by the experimental birds shows that homing pigeons cannot only detect a magnetic anomaly but can also use it as a cue for locating hidden food in an open arena. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Romania | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 44 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 27% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 8 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 27 | 55% |
| Environmental Science | 3 | 6% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 7 | 14% |
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 04 February 2013.
All research outputs
#21,141,111
of 23,794,258 outputs
Outputs from The Science of Nature
#2,076
of 2,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,692
of 73,164 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Science of Nature
#15
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,794,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,195 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 73,164 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.