↓ Skip to main content

Sequential assessment of prey through the use of multiple sensory cues by an eavesdropping bat

Overview of attention for article published in The Science of Nature, May 2012
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 (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
Title
Sequential assessment of prey through the use of multiple sensory cues by an eavesdropping bat
Published in
The Science of Nature, May 2012
DOI 10.1007/s00114-012-0920-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel A. Page, Tanja Schnelle, Elisabeth K. V. Kalko, Thomas Bunge, Ximena E. Bernal

Abstract

Predators are often confronted with a broad diversity of potential prey. They rely on cues associated with prey quality and palatability to optimize their hunting success and to avoid consuming toxic prey. Here, we investigate a predator's ability to assess prey cues during capture, handling, and consumption when confronted with conflicting information about prey quality. We used advertisement calls of a preferred prey item (the túngara frog) to attract fringe-lipped bats, Trachops cirrhosus, then offered palatable, poisonous, and chemically manipulated anurans as prey. Advertisement calls elicited an attack response, but as bats approached, they used additional sensory cues in a sequential manner to update their information about prey size and palatability. While both palatable and poisonous small anurans were readily captured, large poisonous toads were approached but not contacted suggesting the use of echolocation for assessment of prey size at close range. Once prey was captured, bats used chemical cues to make final, post-capture decisions about whether to consume the prey. Bats dropped small, poisonous toads as well as palatable frogs coated in toad toxins either immediately or shortly after capture. Our study suggests that echolocation and chemical cues obtained at close range supplement information obtained from acoustic cues at long range. Updating information about prey quality minimizes the occurrence of costly errors and may be advantageous in tracking temporal and spatial fluctuations of prey and exploiting novel food sources. These findings emphasize the sequential, complex nature of prey assessment that may allow exploratory and flexible hunting behaviors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Brazil 2 2%
Argentina 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 77 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 22%
Student > Bachelor 12 14%
Researcher 11 13%
Other 9 11%
Student > Master 7 8%
Other 19 23%
Unknown 7 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 61 73%
Environmental Science 5 6%
Psychology 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 7 8%
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 05 November 2012.
All research outputs
#3,260,920
of 23,794,258 outputs
Outputs from The Science of Nature
#413
of 2,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,531
of 166,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Science of Nature
#8
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,794,258 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 2,195 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 166,306 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.