| Title |
Come dine with me: food-associated social signalling in wild bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Animal Cognition, February 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10071-015-0851-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stephanie L. King, Vincent M. Janik |
| Abstract |
Food-related signalling is widespread in the animal kingdom with some food-associated vocalizations considered functionally referential. Food calls can, however, vary greatly in the type of information they convey. Thus, there are a multitude of purposes for which food calls are used, including social recruitment, caller spacing, the indication of type, quantity, quality, divisibility of food, the caller's hunger level and even as tools to manipulate prey behaviour. Yet little work has focused on the social aspect of food calling in animals. We investigated the association of social signals in wild bottlenose dolphins with foraging behaviour where context-specific food-associated calls are commonly produced. Our data showed that specific social signals were significantly correlated with food call production and these calls rarely occurred in the absence of food calls. We suggest that animals are sharing additional information on the food patch itself with their social affiliates. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 11% |
| Spain | 1 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 11% |
| Hong Kong | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 56% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 67% |
| Scientists | 2 | 22% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 210 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 206 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 44 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 39 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 34 | 16% |
| Researcher | 33 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 22 | 10% |
| Unknown | 28 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 121 | 58% |
| Environmental Science | 29 | 14% |
| Psychology | 8 | 4% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 9 | 4% |
| Unknown | 36 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 16 June 2015.
All research outputs
#6,479,221
of 25,832,559 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#837
of 1,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,657
of 269,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#11
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,832,559 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,588 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.3. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 269,931 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 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 67% of its contemporaries.