↓ Skip to main content

Route simulations, compass mechanisms and long-distance migration flights in birds

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Comparative Physiology A, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
Title
Route simulations, compass mechanisms and long-distance migration flights in birds
Published in
Journal of Comparative Physiology A, May 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00359-017-1171-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susanne Åkesson, Giuseppe Bianco

Abstract

Bird migration has fascinated humans for centuries and routes crossing the globe are now starting to be revealed by advanced tracking technology. A central question is what compass mechanism, celestial or geomagnetic, is activated during these long flights. Different approaches based on the geometry of flight routes across the globe and route simulations based on predictions from compass mechanisms with or without including the effect of winds have been used to try to answer this question with varying results. A major focus has been use of orthodromic (great circle) and loxodromic (rhumbline) routes using celestial information, while geomagnetic information has been proposed for both a magnetic loxodromic route and a magnetoclinic route. Here, we review previous results and evaluate if one or several alternative compass mechanisms can explain migration routes in birds. We found that most cases could be explained by magnetoclinic routes (up to 73% of the cases), while the sun compas s could explain only 50%. Both magnetic and geographic loxodromes could explain <25% of the routes. The magnetoclinic route functioned across latitudes (1°S-74°N), while the sun compass only worked in the high Arctic (61-69°N). We discuss the results with respect to orientation challenges and availability of orientation cues.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Israel 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
Unknown 85 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 24%
Researcher 14 16%
Student > Bachelor 13 15%
Student > Master 12 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 15 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 41 47%
Environmental Science 8 9%
Neuroscience 6 7%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 17 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 August 2019.
All research outputs
#13,824,255
of 23,815,455 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#947
of 1,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,388
of 311,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#13
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,815,455 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 311,601 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.