↓ Skip to main content

Comparing responses of four ungulate species to playbacks of baboon alarm calls

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, July 2010
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 (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
Title
Comparing responses of four ungulate species to playbacks of baboon alarm calls
Published in
Animal Cognition, July 2010
DOI 10.1007/s10071-010-0334-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dawn M. Kitchen, Thore J. Bergman, Dorothy L. Cheney, James R. Nicholson, Robert M. Seyfarth

Abstract

A growing body of evidence suggests that a wide range of animals can recognize and respond appropriately to calls produced by other species. Social learning has been implicated as a possible mechanism by which heterospecific call recognition might develop. To examine whether familiarity and/or shared vulnerability with the calling species might influence the ability of sympatric species to distinguish heterospecific alarm calls, we tested whether four ungulate species (impala: Aepyceros melampus; tsessebe: Damaliscus lunatus; zebra: Equus burchelli; wildebeest: Connochaetes taurinus) could distinguish baboon (Papio hamadryas ursinus) alarm calls from other loud baboon calls produced during intra-specific aggressive interactions ('contest' calls). Overall, subjects' responses were stronger following playback of alarm calls than contest calls. Of the species tested, impala showed the strongest responses and the greatest difference in composite response scores, suggesting they were best able to differentiate call types. Compared with the other ungulate species, impala are the most frequent associates of baboons. Moreover, like baboons, they are susceptible to both lion and leopard attacks, whereas leopards rarely take the larger ungulates. Although it seems possible that high rates of association and/or shared vulnerability may influence impala's greater ability to distinguish among baboon call types, our results point to a stronger influence of familiarity. Ours is the first study to compare such abilities among several community members with variable natural histories, and we discuss future experiments that would more systematically examine development of these skills in young ungulates.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Germany 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 106 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 29%
Researcher 17 15%
Student > Master 17 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Other 6 5%
Other 22 20%
Unknown 7 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 68 61%
Environmental Science 12 11%
Psychology 10 9%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 2%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 11 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 21 August 2023.
All research outputs
#1,474,093
of 23,394,907 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#340
of 1,480 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,862
of 95,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,394,907 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,480 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 95,645 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.