You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Fitness Consequences of Interspecific Nesting Associations among Cavity-Nesting Birds.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The American Naturalist, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1086/698873 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
James C Mouton, Thomas E Martin |
| Abstract |
Interspecific aggregations of prey may provide benefits by mitigating predation risk, but they can also create costs if they increase competition for resources or are more easily detectable by predators. Variation in predation risk and resource availability may influence the occurrence and fitness effects of aggregating in nature. Yet tests of such possibilities are lacking. Cavity-nesting birds provide an interesting test case. They compete aggressively for resources and experience low nest predation rates, which might predict dispersion, but across 19 years of study we found that they commonly aggregate by sharing nest trees. Tree sharing was more common when aspen were more abundant and was somewhat more common in years with higher nest predation risk. Nest success was higher in shared trees when nest predation risk was higher than average. Ultimately, the costs and benefits of aggregating (nest tree sharing) varied across years, and we outline hypotheses for future studies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 | 4 | 36% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 6 | 55% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 82% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 18% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 5% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 15 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 17 | 43% |
| Environmental Science | 5 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 17 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 11 April 2019.
All research outputs
#5,407,995
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from The American Naturalist
#1,374
of 3,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,881
of 340,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The American Naturalist
#23
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,994 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 340,079 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.