| Title |
Extractive foraging of toxic caterpillars in wild northern pig-tailed macaques (Macaca leonina)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Primates, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10329-017-0638-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Florian Trébouet, Ulrich H. Reichard, Nantasak Pinkaew, Suchinda Malaivijitnond |
| Abstract |
Extractive foraging in nonhuman primates may involve different levels of technical complexity in terms of the number of actions that must be performed and the manual dexterity involved. We describe the extractive foraging of caterpillars in wild northern pig-tailed macaques (Macaca leonina) at Khao Yai National Park, Thailand. The study group, observed from May to December 2016 (n = 146 days), comprised 60-70 habituated individuals, including 3-4 adult males, 20-23 adult females, and 36-47 immatures. Four adult males and five adult females, observed from September to November 2016 for a total of 24 days, were selected for focal animal sampling. Northern pig-tailed macaques were observed eating at least two families (Erebidae and Limacodidae) and three genera (Macrobrochis sp., Phlossa sp. and Scopelodes sp.) of caterpillars. While the monkeys ate short and small caterpillars with stinging setae and non-setae caterpillars without processing, they performed extensive caterpillar-rubbing behavior on large and long caterpillars with stinging setae. Based on 61 extractive foraging bouts, we found that caterpillar rubbing was hierarchically organized into five stages and 12 elements. Five stages of behavior sequence started with picking the caterpillar up, transporting it to a substrate, rubbing it to remove stinging setae, ingesting it, and then cleaning hands and mouth. Only adult macaques were observed using a leaf to rub stinging caterpillars. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 71% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Scientists | 2 | 29% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 35% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 25% |
| Professor | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 2 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 25% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 10% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 10% |
| Psychology | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 15% |
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 23 November 2017.
All research outputs
#6,970,488
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from Primates
#440
of 1,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,189
of 326,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Primates
#5
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,016 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 326,002 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 65% 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 58% of its contemporaries.