↓ Skip to main content

Faecal particle size in free-ranging primates supports a ‘rumination’ strategy in the proboscis monkey (Nasalis larvatus)

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, January 2014
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 (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
Title
Faecal particle size in free-ranging primates supports a ‘rumination’ strategy in the proboscis monkey (Nasalis larvatus)
Published in
Oecologia, January 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00442-013-2863-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ikki Matsuda, Augustine Tuuga, Chie Hashimoto, Henry Bernard, Juichi Yamagiwa, Julia Fritz, Keiko Tsubokawa, Masato Yayota, Tadahiro Murai, Yuji Iwata, Marcus Clauss

Abstract

In mammalian herbivores, faecal particle size indicates chewing efficiency. Proboscis monkeys (Nasalis larvatus) are foregut fermenters in which regurgitation and remastication (i.e. rumination) was observed in the wild, but not with the same consistency as found in ruminants and camelids. To test whether this species has exceptional chewing efficiency among primates, as ruminants have among mammals, we compared faecal particle size in free-ranging specimens with those of 12 other primate species. The discrete mean faecal particle size (dMEAN) increased with body mass (M) as dMEAN (mm) = 0.65 (95% confidence interval 0.49-0.87) M((0.33 (0.23-0.43)) in simple-stomached species. At 0.53 ± 0.09 mm, dMEAN of proboscis monkeys was particularly small for their average M (15 kg) and significantly smaller than values of two other foregut fermenting primate species. While we cannot exclude other reasons for the exceptional chewing efficiency in proboscis monkeys, this represents circumstantial evidence for regular use of rumination in this species. Thus, proboscis monkeys might be a model for convergent evolution towards rumination in a non-ungulate taxon.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 64 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 21%
Researcher 12 18%
Student > Bachelor 10 15%
Student > Master 10 15%
Other 5 8%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 7 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 56%
Environmental Science 8 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 8 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 December 2022.
All research outputs
#3,829,839
of 23,269,984 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#744
of 4,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,272
of 307,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#6
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,269,984 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,263 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 307,763 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.