| Title |
Views, landmarks, and routes: how do desert ants negotiate an obstacle course?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Comparative Physiology A, October 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00359-010-0597-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Antoine Wystrach, Sebastian Schwarz, Patrick Schultheiss, Guy Beugnon, Ken Cheng |
| Abstract |
The Australian desert ant Melophorus bagoti often follows stereotypical routes through a cluttered landscape containing both distant panoramic views and obstacles (plants) to navigate around. We created an artificial obstacle course for the ants between a feeder and their nest. Landmarks comprised natural objects in the landscape such as logs, branches, and tussocks. Many ants travelled stereotypical routes home through the obstacle course in training, threading repeatedly the same gaps in the landmarks. Manipulations altering the relations between the landmarks and the surrounding panorama, however, affected the routes in two major ways. Both interchanging the positions of landmarks (transpositions) and displacing the entire landmark set along with the starting position of the ants (translations) (1) reduced the stereotypicality of the route, and (2) increased turns and meanders during travel. The ants might have used the entire panorama in view-based travel, or the distal panorama might prime the identification and use of landmarks en route. Despite the large data set, both options (not mutually exclusive) remain viable. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Canada | 2 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Argentina | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 85 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 28% |
| Researcher | 18 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 10% |
| Professor | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 13% |
| Unknown | 13 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 49 | 52% |
| Computer Science | 7 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 6% |
| Engineering | 5 | 5% |
| Psychology | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Unknown | 17 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 03 September 2013.
All research outputs
#1,126,628
of 23,815,455 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#57
of 1,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,616
of 101,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,815,455 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 101,613 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.