↓ Skip to main content

Which temporal resolution to consider when investigating the impact of climatic data on population dynamics? The case of the lesser horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros)

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
Title
Which temporal resolution to consider when investigating the impact of climatic data on population dynamics? The case of the lesser horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros)
Published in
Oecologia, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00442-017-3901-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pierre-Loup Jan, Olivier Farcy, Josselin Boireau, Erwan Le Texier, Alice Baudoin, Pascaline Le Gouar, Sébastien J. Puechmaille, Eric J. Petit

Abstract

Climatic variables are often considered when studying environmental impacts on population dynamics of terrestrial species. However, the temporal resolution considered varies depending on studies, even among studies of the same taxa. Most studies interested in climatic impacts on populations tend to average climatic data across timeframes covering life cycle periods of the organism in question or longer, even though most climatic databases provide at least a monthly resolution. We explored the impact of climatic variables on lesser horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros) demography based on count data collected at 94 maternity colonies from 2000 to 2014 in Britanny, France. Meteorological data were considered using different time resolutions (month, life cycle period and year) to investigate their adequacy. Model averaging was used to detect significant predictors for each temporal resolution. Our results show that the finest temporal resolution, e.g. month, was more informative than coarser ones. Precipitation predictors were particularly decisive, with a negative impact on colony sizes when rainfall occurred in October, and a positive impact for June precipitations. Fecundity was influenced by April weather. This highlights the strong impact of climatic conditions during crucial but short time periods on the population dynamics of bats. We demonstrate the importance of choosing an appropriate time resolution and suggest that analogous studies should consider fine-scale temporal resolution (e.g. month) to better grasp the relationship between population dynamics and climatic conditions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 28%
Researcher 12 18%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Other 4 6%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 9 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 51%
Environmental Science 12 18%
Unspecified 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Physics and Astronomy 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 15 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 25 September 2017.
All research outputs
#7,476,920
of 22,988,380 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#1,672
of 4,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,143
of 312,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#21
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,988,380 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,235 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. 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 312,555 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 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.