| Title |
Complex body size trends in the evolution of sloths (Xenarthra: Pilosa)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Ecology and Evolution, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12862-014-0184-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sara Raj Pant, Anjali Goswami, John A Finarelli |
| Abstract |
Extant sloths present an evolutionary conundrum in that the two living genera are superficially similar (small-bodied, folivorous, arboreal) but diverged from one another approximately 30 million years ago and are phylogenetically separated by a radiation of medium to massive, mainly ground-dwelling, taxa. Indeed, the species in the two living genera are among the smallest, and perhaps most unusual, of the 50+ known sloth species, and must have independently and convergently evolved small size and arboreality. In order to accurately reconstruct sloth evolution, it is critical to incorporate their extinct diversity in analyses. Here, we used a dataset of 57 species of living and fossil sloths to examine changes in body mass mean and variance through their evolution, employing a general time-variable model that allows for analysis of evolutionary trends in continuous characters within clades lacking fully-resolved phylogenies, such as sloths. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 101 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 18% |
| Researcher | 19 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 19 | 18% |
| Unknown | 14 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 52 | 49% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 15 | 14% |
| Environmental Science | 8 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Unknown | 16 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 55. 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 06 April 2023.
All research outputs
#766,599
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#152
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,643
of 250,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#8
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 250,370 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.