↓ Skip to main content

Food preferences and mound-building behaviour of the mound-building mice Mus spicilegus

Overview of attention for article published in The Science of Nature, August 2011
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 (86th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Food preferences and mound-building behaviour of the mound-building mice Mus spicilegus
Published in
The Science of Nature, August 2011
DOI 10.1007/s00114-011-0837-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michaela Hölzl, Ján Krištofík, Alžbeta Darolová, Herbert Hoi

Abstract

Optimal foraging strategies and food choice are influenced by various factors, e.g. availability, size and caloric content of the food type and predation risk. However, food choice criteria may change when food is not eaten immediately but has to be carried to a storage site for later use. For example, handling time in terms of harvesting and transport time should be optimized, particularly when the risk of predation is high. Thus, it is not clear whether food selected by hoarding animals reflects their food preference due to intrinsic features of the food type, e.g. size, caloric or lipid content, or whether the food type selected is a compromise that also considers the handling time required for harvesting and transport. We investigate this question in relation to food hoarding behaviour in mound-building mice. In autumn, mound-building mice Mus spicilegus collect seeds and other plant material and cover it with soil. Such above-ground storage is quite unusual for rodents. Here, we investigated whether there is a relationship between the seed species preferred as building materials and those preferred for food. We conducted a seed preference test using three most collected weed species for mound building. Controlling factors like food availability or predation risk, mice prefer Setaria spp. as food, although Amaranthus spp. and Chenopodium spp. were preferentially harvested and stored. By including the availability of the three species, our experimental results were confirmed, namely, a clear preference for Setaria spp. Also, handling time and seed size revealed to influence plant choice.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 23%
Student > Master 4 18%
Researcher 4 18%
Other 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 2 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 73%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 9%
Environmental Science 1 5%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 5%
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 01 September 2011.
All research outputs
#3,108,935
of 23,794,258 outputs
Outputs from The Science of Nature
#392
of 2,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,696
of 125,881 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Science of Nature
#5
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,794,258 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 2,195 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 125,881 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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.