↓ Skip to main content

Gleaning bat echolocation calls do not elicit antipredator behaviour in the Pacific field cricket, Teleogryllus oceanicus (Orthoptera: Gryllidae)

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Comparative Physiology A, June 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Gleaning bat echolocation calls do not elicit antipredator behaviour in the Pacific field cricket, Teleogryllus oceanicus (Orthoptera: Gryllidae)
Published in
Journal of Comparative Physiology A, June 2009
DOI 10.1007/s00359-009-0454-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hannah M. ter Hofstede, Joanne Killow, James H. Fullard

Abstract

Bats that glean prey (capture them from surfaces) produce relatively inconspicuous echolocation calls compared to aerially foraging bats and could therefore be difficult predators to detect, even for insects with ultrasound sensitive ears. In the cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus, an auditory interneuron (AN2) responsive to ultrasound is known to elicit turning behaviour, but only when the cricket is in flight. Turning would not save a cricket from a gleaning bat so we tested the hypothesis that AN2 elicits more appropriate antipredator behaviours when crickets are on the ground. The echolocation calls of Nyctophilus geoffroyi, a sympatric gleaning bat, were broadcast to singing male and walking female T. oceanicus. Males did not cease singing and females did not pause walking more than usual in response to the bat calls up to intensities of 82 dB peSPL. Extracellular recordings from the cervical connective revealed that the echolocation calls elicited AN2 action potentials at high firing rates, indicating that the crickets could hear these stimuli. AN2 appears to elicit antipredator behaviour only in flight, and we discuss possible reasons for this context-dependent function.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
India 1 2%
Denmark 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 45 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 27%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Other 5 10%
Student > Master 5 10%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 5 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 65%
Environmental Science 7 14%
Psychology 3 6%
Linguistics 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 27 November 2010.
All research outputs
#3,293,817
of 23,815,455 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#196
of 1,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,228
of 100,826 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,815,455 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,450 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 100,826 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.