↓ Skip to main content

The contribution of private and public information in foraging by Australasian gannets

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, December 2013
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 (87th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
Title
The contribution of private and public information in foraging by Australasian gannets
Published in
Animal Cognition, December 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10071-013-0716-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gabriel E. Machovsky-Capuska, Mark E. Hauber, Eric Libby, Christophe Amiot, David Raubenheimer

Abstract

Predators that forage on foods with temporally and spatially patchy distributions may rely on private or public sources of information to enhance their chances of foraging success. Using GPS tracking, field observations, and videography, we examined potential sites and mechanisms of information acquisition in departures for foraging trips by colonially breeding Australasian gannets (Morus serrator). Analyses of the bill-fencing ceremony between mated pairs of breeding gannets did not detect correlations between parameters of this reciprocal behavior and foraging trips, as would have been predicted if gannets used this behavior as a source of private information. Instead, 60 % of the departing birds flew directly to join water rafts of other conspecific en route to the feeding grounds. The departure of solitary birds from the water rafts was synchronized (within 60 s) with the arrival of incoming foragers and also among departing birds. Furthermore, solitary departing birds from the rafts left in the same directional quadrant (90º slices) as the prior arriving (67 %) and also prior departing forager (79 %). When associated plunge dives of conspecific were visible from the colony, providing a public source of information, gannets more often departed from the water rafts in groups. Our study thus provides evidence for the use of water rafts, but not the nest site, as locations of information transfer, and also confirms the use of local enhancement as a strategy for foraging flights by Australasian gannets.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
New Zealand 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 77 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 20%
Researcher 12 15%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 20 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 42%
Environmental Science 14 18%
Psychology 3 4%
Unspecified 1 1%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 21 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 24 December 2013.
All research outputs
#2,929,725
of 22,738,543 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#570
of 1,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,857
of 307,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#13
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,738,543 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 307,717 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.