↓ Skip to main content

Mate familiarity and social learning in a monogamous lizard

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Mate familiarity and social learning in a monogamous lizard
Published in
Oecologia, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00442-018-4153-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kirke L. Munch, Daniel W. A. Noble, Erik Wapstra, Geoffrey M. While

Abstract

Social learning is thought to be advantageous as it allows an animal to gather information quickly without engaging in costly trial-and-error learning. However, animals should be selective about when and whom they learn from. Familiarity is predicted to positively influence an animal's reliance on social learning; yet, few studies have empirically tested this theory. We used a lizard (Liopholis whitii) that forms long-term monogamous pair bonds to examine the effects of partner familiarity on social learning in two novel foraging tasks, an association and a reversal task. We allowed female lizards to observe trained conspecifics that were either familiar (social mate) or unfamiliar execute these tasks and compared these two groups with control females that did not receive social information. Lizards preferentially relied on trial-and-error learning in the association task. In the reversal task, lizards that were demonstrated by familiar partners learnt in fewer trials compared to control lizards and made more correct choices. Our results provide some evidence for context-dependent learning with lizards differentiating between when they utilize social learning, and, to a limited degree, whom they learnt from. Understanding the role of the social context in which learning occurs provides important insights into the benefits of social learning and sociality more generally.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 20%
Student > Master 3 12%
Researcher 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 7 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 48%
Neuroscience 3 12%
Environmental Science 2 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Unknown 7 28%
Attention Score in Context

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 09 May 2018.
All research outputs
#7,555,516
of 23,047,237 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#1,689
of 4,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,917
of 327,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#35
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,047,237 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,237 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 327,709 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.