| Title |
The ant’s estimation of distance travelled: experiments with desert ants, Cataglyphis fortis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Comparative Physiology A, November 2003
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00359-003-0465-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
S. Sommer, R. Wehner |
| Abstract |
Foraging desert ants, Cataglyphis fortis, monitor their position relative to the nest by path integration. They continually update the direction and distance to the nest by employing a celestial compass and an odometer. In the present account we addressed the question of how the precision of the ant's estimate of its homing distance depends on the distance travelled. We trained ants to forage at different distances in linear channels comprising a nest entrance and a feeder. For testing we caught ants at the feeder and released them in a parallel channel. The results show that ants tend to underestimate their distances travelled. This underestimation is the more pronounced, the larger the foraging distance gets. The quantitative relationship between training distance and the ant's estimate of this distance can be described by a logarithmic and an exponential model. The ant's odometric undershooting could be adaptive during natural foraging trips insofar as it leads the homing ant to concentrate the major part of its nest-search behaviour on the base of its individual foraging sector, i.e. on its familiar landmark corridor. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 4 | 4% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Hong Kong | 1 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 4% |
| Unknown | 79 | 83% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 26 | 27% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 11% |
| Professor | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 17 | 18% |
| Unknown | 4 | 4% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 49 | 52% |
| Neuroscience | 10 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 8 | 8% |
| Psychology | 6 | 6% |
| Environmental Science | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 12% |
| Unknown | 7 | 7% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 15 January 2024.
All research outputs
#8,534,976
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#514
of 1,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,997
of 59,893 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,550 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 59,893 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.